MSM ignores any real news to beat the Russian Bear

Holding fast to conspiracy narratives pushed by Hillary Clinton (and her campaign of trolls) on Russia meddling, misogyny, racism that cheated her out of her destined Ovalating Office. Unfortunately, she is right, that media will follow her lead every time. While she and the entrenched media establishment are baited and trolled by Russia. They would take career Russian propagandists word or version of events over Trump’s almost every time.

It’s really easy if you are in the Kremlin hell-bent on sowing discord in America. If destroying credibility in American institutions is their goal, then the Left hands them a victory flag. So even when Trump goes to Poland to make a classical academic defense of western civilization, especially then, they have a collective panic attack and cannot recover. But intensive care could not treat their disease.

Then came his next trip to France with liberal Macron, their macaroni boy of Paris they fell for head first. This time MSM decided to downplay coverage of the visit ignoring most of the ceremony, except the presser to push Russia questions. Even the centennial of WWI and France’s Bastile Day got marginal coverage. Jake Tapper called it just a photo-op for Trump. Right a 100 year anniversary is just a photo-op , world history just gets in the way. After all, that is the way they see it.

So now, once again, another historical marker pops up that media seems too preoccupied with Russian propaganda to notice — or give due diligence to. It’s like you have this Russian spy novel playing out in the background to obfuscate any real news.

US Has Produced More Oil Than Saudi Arabia For 4 Straight Years [GRAPH]

Daily Caller

Saudi Arabia has lagged the U.S. in oil production for the last four years, according to federal data compiled by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.

Perry created a chart Saturday showing just how far behind Saudi oil production has trailed U.S. production. Rising U.S. production combined with OPEC policies drove crude oil prices down to new lows. Monday, a barrel of oil costs $46.26, while the same barrel would have sold for $109.04 in June 2014.

U.S. oil production, on the other hand, is increasing. The U.S. imported about 60 percent of its oil in 2007, but by 2014, the country only imported 27 percent of its oil — the lowest level since 1985. Rising oil production has reduced demand for Saudi oil abroad too, keeping prices low.

Saudi Arabia can likely handle cheap oil better than other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations, but cheap oil is still devastating the country.


Read at Daily Caller

And yet they wonder why we call MSM Fake News? Everything positive — as they define it — about their messiah’s golden throne was heralded from the mountaintops to make sure it echoed to anyone. It was unavoidable. They ran his Saturday addresses to tout all the great, but invisible, good news. It was good because they said so. Job numbers, even when bad, were called good. Or, as the Bible says, “those who call evil good and good evil.” And it worked, or saturated the airwaves to a point no one else could be heard.

Spending, national debt, budget issues. Remember Obamafiles claimed he halved the budget ‘deficit’ to cover the 2o trillion dollar explosion. The fairy dust worked, put some lipstick on that pig and sell it like the sweety-pie lie it is. He depleted the military, and budget, but who cares about that thing? All is good, they said. ‘These are the good times.’ Never mind that you did not see or feel it. You weren’t alone though. Most didn’t, still you had to listen to regurgitated talking points of how great things were going.

No, we weren’t wrong. Our instincts were not misguided. We weren’t misinformed. We were not too stupid to understand. We were not uneducated halfwits. We were just being constantly lied to on such a level, to such a degree, that Americans never were subjected to before. Even low information voters knew something was wrong. Economists, real ones that is, were not impressed. But even they had a hard time getting any information out. It was all being blurred, blotted out, and intentionally drown out by the so-called good news coming directly from, and being dictated by, the White House.

But it was all good in those days and there were no questions to ask, because no questions were necessary. Just report the White House talking points, life was easy for reporters. Obama would even tell press what stories they think should be covered, and what stories they didn’t think deserved time.

Guess what happened?

Remember Benghazi, IRS, Lois Lerner, or Fast and Furious? Leading from behind was actually a defense strategy they could get behind. Meaningless red lines were all the rage. Russian intervention? It really is not intervention when you are inviting them into Syria and altering your national policy to their liking and getting nothing in return. Of course that is not intervention. That is failed US leadership like we never experienced before either. It was complicit failure. Now they are paranoid about intervention? They opened the door, invited them in, coalesced with them. Is it any surprise Russia wasn’t the greatest or most respectful house guests, when Obama shows no respect for our own house?

Then, to top it all off, when Obama left he had them all declare that he had a completely scandal-free administration, not even a little one. Remember that? So it was an insult on reason and intelligence. It was a fraud. Obamacare was created, built and sold on lies. They named it the Affordable Care Act.

The article above, while it is good news to be ignored under Trump, will likely be co-opted for propaganda value by Obamafiles — who are just as active outside the Office as they were in the White House. So they are quite anxiuos to take credit for anything good. It is what they do. Though our growth and oil business in particular was in spite of Obama’s war on energy, not because of it. But that doesn’t stop them from laying claim.

Anyone dishonest enough to prop up Obama’s regime for 8 years is certainly going to use any dirty trick to that end, to credit Obama with a net positive. A guy like Obama that never had to live under or feel the effect of his own policies. Calling evil good was quite popular, getting even easier with practice. It was instant revision everywhere.

So now that we have oil production growth, who do you think can find fault with our achievement? That’s right, the same people who will gladly try to lay credit to it. But the Left’s “green” team will condemn it as a negative. Oil, fossil fuels is bad juju. Which is why we knew Obama was never supportive to the industry. Yet he wants credit? In your dreams, Obama. And if America was not as innovative, like we’ve always been, this could not have happened. Certainly it was nothing Obama had a hand in.

However, we shouldn’t be afaid to admit good news, because some of it took place under Obama’s tyranny. It began and was under way before him. Like Clinton had the benefit of the tech boom. But Obama did about everything he could to step on it.

Under Trump, all good news will be summarily buried, or tortured by Obama revisionists if it refuses stay in the hole. Since the Left controls the media, that is the way it is. And whatever they can tie to Obama’s Legacy of Lies, they will. Memory Lane is not a place I’d want to live, if I were Obama

RightRing | Bullright

Advertisements

Comey Day turns to Comey Day Down

Its billing was “must see” but its reality was seeing does not equate to belief.

I could have made a long, textual post no one would care to read, but no one could indict Comey’s credibility better than he did all by himself. Comey goes to the Senate.

There was an impeachment on Thursday in the Senate…
an impeachment of Comey’s character.

The guy displays all that is wrong with our government. He plotted by political motives all the way along, and then sought to manipulate the entire process for his self-relevant gain.

The best part is that he was fired but even that didn’t temper his manipulative scheme or enthusiasm for relevancy. He is the consummate disgruntled employee now. For Comey, going postal means getting up in the middle of the night to plot leaking information to try to take down a sitting president.

Leakers everywhere must be toasting Jim’s motivation, creativity and persistence.

Comey, as we see in living color, is not the textbook example of a man of character but a compromised man of self-serving character, swimming in a sea of politicized government of Obama. Even his adept lies were not enough to mitigate his character flaws. Emotional yes.

Okay, I’ll mention just one statement:

“I was honestly concerned he might lie about the nature of our meeting, so I thought it important to document.” – Comey on his memo.

Note how he refers to his “honest” emotions and Trump’s deceitful nature. But what is the nature of a teed off government bureaucrat?

He claimed the reason he just had to leak was to get a special counsel to investigate. An investigation that would ‘hopefully’ put him — and his memos — smack in the middle of. An investigation where he could apply his vast, crisis-creating chasing experience and talents, aided by a special counsel who was a long time friend. What could go wrong?

In a Twilight Zone episode, it might be described something like this:

“A man who sought to be the leading influencer of an investigation finds himself at the center of controversy in the investigation. Tables turn as he must now justify his own motives by trying to impugn the motives of everyone else. Stay tuned as best schemes sometimes do not work out just the way you plotted planned them. …
I give you: ‘The Irony of a Government Bureaucrat’.”

RightRing | Bullright – 6/11/17

Feel the Bern: Sanders proposes Christian ban in government

Bernie Sanders doubles down on his Christian hatred during confirmation hearings. Since by the left’s own definition disagreement with other religions is hatred, a phobia, then Bernie Sanders has one gargantuan phobia.

See article for Bernie’s condemnation of a Christian who does not deserve to be in government and should be banned from it on grounds of his belief.

See: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448393/watch-bernie-sanders-unconstitutionally-impose-religious-test-public-office

Oh, I feel the Bern. Had he spoke to a Muslim, I can assure you that conversation wouldn’t have happened. However, a total belief in Marxism would be a qualifier for public office.

Griffin, slide on over… it’s a big pool

So on one day that everyone at least can agree to decry what Kathy Griffin did as vile, another has surfaced to defend her. Go figure, who would be as unhinged as her?

You might have guessed, Keith Olbermann. The guy who’s pimping a new book called “Trump is F****ing Crazy.”($27) He’s just the advocate for the CNN-fired Griffin.

He took to Twitter to lambast the biggest name he could find.
So where did he land his venom and vitriol? Franklin Graham.

Graham denounced the art project of Kathy Griffin on Twitter:

“I work with Christians whose family members have been decapitated. @KathyGriffin is sick and disgusting.”

So Olbermann snaps back…

This is all too rich even for the chronic hypocrite, Keith Olbermann:

“And you’re a professional bullshit artist who exploits the stupid and poor. Shut the hell up #LetHeWhoIsWithoutSinCastTheFirstStone “

That’s a new low for him. Griffin gets wide berth and Graham gets attacked. Graham does a lot to help humanity, even in the Ebola outbreak in Africa, but Olberman needs to preach to Franklin’s demons. Then Keith throws a hashtag at Graham, for merely calling out the disgusting, attention-seeking mockery Griffin swims in.

Let me see, think of a bullshit artist who exploits stupid and poor people and who’s name would bubble right to the top? It has to be the Clinton name. Haiti anyone? They aren’t happy with either of the Clintons. Incidentally, the last I looked. the Clinton Foundation was still using Haiti’s last disaster as part of its fund raising scheme.

If anyone could try to make Kathy Griffin’s act look rational, it’s Keith Olbermann.

What makes a speech: the good, bad and intolerant

Routinely, when Obama gave a speech the press would take excerpts to highlight praiseworthy sections using all kinds of adjectives — historic, inspirational, soaring, etc.

When Trump gives a speech, the exact opposite happens. So when the mainstream media must use Roger Stone’s criticism of Trump getting an award to make a case against him, there are no bars under which they won’t crawl. They’ve called Stone every name in the book. But now they reference his valid criticism of Trump stooping as he gets a meddle from the King of Saudi Arabia. That’s how the Left rolls.

For MSM, a great speech is made by 1) who the speaker is and 2)who the audience is and 3) by the vague and lofty liberal rhetoric therein. What makes a great conservative speech, to liberals and media, is not giving it in the first place. Case closed

Notice with progressives, the key subject is government and that we should just all cede to its (gubmint’s) one “united force” for “progressive values.” Conservatives, on the other hand, give speeches about individual opportunity and the liberty to aspire to heights as far as you can imagine, against all the odds — including government. Something once admired.

Liberals can manage to unify around dissent to that message, talking about leveling playing fields, and government making results fair, government putting its foot on the scale to pick winners and losers. (that’s what gubmint is for… to promote progressives)

Case in point: Pence goes to Notre Dame to give a speech and they stage a walkout to show him how they feel about him. Of all places, Notre Dame was the place that welcomed Obama to speak even with his staunch Planned Parenthood and abortion advocacy. That was no problem, but Pence coming to Notre Dame is a huge problem. Also a place that arrested Alan Keys for protesting Obama’s abortion “values” at its open doors policy.

There is more. Liberals love to give emotional, big-government speeches. When conservatives speak about individual freedom, they are protested by a unified bloc. Which one is inspiring? Which appeals to individuals? How is a big government speech inspirational? It’s only an inspiration to the state. Does it leave one with an inspiring message of what they can do? So that is the paradox.

Giving a commencement speech is a time for inspiration on applying his/her time and talents. But liberals would rather have an argument over whether someone is, in fact, a “he or she” or a genderless human genaphobe?(add that phobia to the lexicon) They find inspiration in any protest, resistance. Not resistance to the status quo…no, they resist in order to preserve government status quo. Change is bad but two years ago they stood for “change you can believe in”. They don’t want change from chaos and corruption.

 

That was the problem with Obama. He stood for reversing any time- honored traditions and basic common sense. To Obama, dignity is a value only if you stand for cultural revolution. Traditions and cultural mores are to be reversed. This turns protection of life to an agenda of protecting the killing of your progeny. The concept of civilization morphs into uncivil behavior. Violence is the only viable option to a peaceful society.

Under this agenda, it is only natural to prefer a screaming insurgency speech about “liberal values” over inspiration. What rallies progressives is good lecture on intolerance — for not against it. Intolerance is a redeeming value to the left. A giant 180 degree reversal.

Of course the political message is of utmost importance to the left, while individual freedom is marginalized — unless you define killing babies as freedom, and preserving that freedom considered a “reproductive” civil right, and protecting deviancy is a value.

It used to be liberals always said “protest stops at waters’ edge” when a president went overseas. That was tradition. Now the waters edge is where protest really begins. Trump went wheels-up in AF-1 for Saudi Arabia, on his first trip, as MSM and NYT rolled out their latest attack on Trump. ‘Is it time for impeachment,‘ media asks?

The attack was over words spoken to Russians in the oval office the week before, calling Comey a nutjob. So Comey is allowed to call the president a liar but Trump cannot call Comey crazy, after everything he did in the last 18 months? Trump’s first foreign trip was the opportunity they waited for. As soon as he’s off the ground, they throw the dirt. It would be the first president they tried to impeach on foreign soil.

They could not find a single thing in Obama’s world apology tour to criticize, even as Obama criticized the US. Wasn’t it soaring? An offering to the world.
 

Another example of the backwards programming of the left is their investigation on Russian collusion. ‘No, nothing there, which is why we need to investigate.‘ See, the investigation itself justifies their charges. Why is he under investigation if he did nothing wrong? Then they want to use the fact that they have all these investigations as grounds for impeachment. Who did they not want to investigate?

It is an investigation of his campaign, before he even took office. If they wanted to attack someone for running a corrupt campaign it would be Hillary Clinton. But no, that is precisely the person we are not supposed to investigate. The stuff she did was in office.

Now the process, and corruption thereof, justifies charges against someone. Due process takes on a new meaning to the left. Warrantless searches, surveillance, were fine on Trump while the corrupt process protected the Hildabeast. But due accountability and responsibility never happens. Thus, the good guys get accused and the corrupt ones get a pass or worse, protection. The presumption of innocence is only for the corrupt.

These uber-leftists are the people who make great, soaring, progressive speeches that media can find no fault with. They are the historic ones? The process protects its own. The proof is that in 7 months they reversed everything they said they stood on. Note: revise speeches accordingly.

RightRing | Bullright

State of Deep Denial and Defiance

The Democrats want to impeach the campaign and candidacy of Donald Trump. That’s what this is all about. It’s about the campaign, stupid.

Forget the Russian hacking, the Left has stolen our election from us. You remember the one last November? And I’d like to see the investigation over that.

The Left also stole the concept: we were and are the resistance. That and Trump’s election is exactly why we see the response from the entire establishment across the spectrum, aiming its guns on Trump’s administration. Meanwhile, there is a complete shadow government combined with Deep State focused on Trump.

It’s no secret, the Democrats wanted Comey gone for what he did to Hillary alone. Trump fires him, Dems jeer and then use Comey as grounds to impeach Trump. I have to check if the earth is still orbiting the sun or has their “Mother Earth” just gone rogue?

Meanwhile, the left issued a new dictum that Republicans cannot bring Obama and his legacy of lies, scandals or Hillary into the discussion. Take Obama and Hillary off the table? How convenient this web of deceit is.

However, scrubbing Obama and Hillary creates the convenient excuse to mention Nixon in every conversation. That is when they aren’t gossiping about Russia and Putin.

A fired Comey is suddenly the center stage character in this soap opera. How’s that figure? Discredited director Comey instantly has unimpeachable credibility. Beam me up, Scotty.

All while Obama writes and edits his Memoirs from Hell. Eric Holder, Susan Rice, Ben Rhodes, Huma Mahmood Abedin, Hillary Clinton have get out of jail free cards from media. So Obama’s official tenure of blame has ended. A new phase of blame has begun.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama: Profiles In Lies

Let’s get this straight: the guy who lied about Bengazi, lied about Obamacare — just to get it passed — who promised Putin and Russia more flexibility after his last election, (when he’d no longer be accountable to voters), who rejected accountability, the guy who voted present in Illinois on all the tough votes — Obama.

That guy deserves a Profiles in Courage award?

“It is my fervent hope, and the hope of millions, that regardless of Party such courage is still possible. That today’s members of Congress regardless of party are willing to look at the facts and speak the truth, even when it contradicts party positions.

I hope current members of Congress recall that it actually doesn’t take a lot of courage to aid those who are already powerful, already comfortable, already influential; but it does require some courage to champion the vulnerable.”

The “vulnerable” – unless, of course, it is babies or life in the womb who deserve abortion. And call that “social justice.” too. You channel that courage so well, Obama.

Was it for courageously meddling and intervening in Israel’s election, in Egypt’s election, supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, refusing to call it Radical Islamic Terrorism?

Obama, the guy who lacked a strategy to deal with ISIS, who called them a JV team. The guy who drew a red line and ran away from it. The guy who wore the race card on his lapel to provide immunity from criticism. The guy who only wanted positive reports back from our military operations. Courage, expedience… he lectures Congress?

Those courageous feats, and more, earn him the Profiles in Courage Award from the JFK Library. The words Obama and courage do not belong in the same paragraph.

H/T to the Guardian

Know who your friends, enemies are

One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.

That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?

But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.

That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today

Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.

President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.

But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.

‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.

The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.

‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.

……./

Continue reading at Christian Today

Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’

Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.

Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.

Though even speaking about abortion, and protecting life, has been deemed political and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing, that’s okay.

So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist, Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. No, that is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

A Potpourri of Liberal Hypocrisy

Three things you can always be assured of: death, taxes and liberal hypocrisy. No region on earth is more saturated with it than California — proudly known as the incubator and purveyor of liberal thought.

Since that is an established fact, it would be an overload to list examples. Liberals, i.e. Democrats in lockstep, are demanding San Fran and the sate divest and boycott any construction companies who cooperate on building the wall.(seems even bidding)

It’s okay to discriminate against them — it’s encouraged. But if we threaten to withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities refusing to follow the law, they threaten to sue.

Move along to Maryland, wonderful little Rockville. Here they have a crime where two illegals (undocumented) raped a 14 year old girl in a bathroom in school. One 18 and the other a minor. Outrage erupts from sane people. But Montgomery county is a sanctuary area, so good luck nailing them. How much more should a school be a sanctuary for citizens of a community? But never mind.

In fact, liberals want to declare all Maryland a sanctuary for illegals. They are threatening that any town or county doing otherwise would have its state funding cut.

You see how backwards this all is? It’s completely upside down or reversed. They’ve made official, unlawful resistance to law the new normal. (not the exception) Oops, we’re sorry, there are no exemptions You can’t opt out of it — that would be unlawful.

Another case in the South is in Texas. We all know they take a stand, right? Well, they have Sanctuary Sally, an elected sheriff officially denying her oath and refusing to cooperate with federal law. Even worse, she ran on a platform of defying the law.

Add her to the coalition of Resistance. At least Governor Abbot is trying to resist ol’ Sanctuary Sally. Not so much in Maryland or California. They get rewarded there.

I have a new medical term for this craziness: Sanctuary Psychosis.

Their biggest fear or problem is how to obstruct or avoid the federal law.

Meanwhile, Trump rolled out his second national security executive order that was immediately met with an act of defiance from Hawaii to halt it. Yes, national security is the very last thing government should be concerned with. Preserving lawlessness is a priority.

Let’s go even deeper — not into the abstract but into the liberal hypocrisy epidemic.

Ryan and Trump try to pass the repeal and replace Obamacare plan. Whamo, it meets with stiff resistance. Okay, you might expect as much. But the same problems Obamacare had, has are the same ones they accuse are in this plan. Liberals sent their mutiny of militia to townhalls to protest, claiming they were just like Tea Parties.

As the bill got yanked, when it did not have the votes, liberals ran to the microphones. Nancy Pelosi declared it a huge victory for the people — who have a failed system that is doomed to implosion. That’s a victory. Your skyrocketing premiums and deductibles you can never meet are… “a victory.” Fight to save that.

We’ve now seen hypocrisy on a scale never even imagined before.

N. Korea, Syria and Russia became 5-alarm problems the day Trump took office. Obama hadn’t done a thing but hey, now that they are Trumps’ probs, they are super urgent.

Obama never lifted a finger in office to fix his Obamacare , but now Dems scream it needs to be fixed. Now they say premiums and deductibles are too high, and claim it is Trump’s problem to fix — that he’s responsible for it. Really?(or so they assert)

So we’ve been there, done that and have all the scars to prove it.
Now they tell us how ugly those scars are.

RightRing | Bullright

Comey turning Explainer-in-Chief?

Sticking to news you wish was fake and the inauguration, the Comey factor is back. Just a cameraman short of a reality show in Washington, Comey weighs a public explanation for his actions during the campaign. Then a generous side-order of Clintons’ explanations.

Add some gasoline to that fire, why don’t you? Democrats are already furious with Comey, claiming he caused them to lose along with the Russian hacking. That is a wild conspiracy: the FBI and Russians in tandem took Hillary down. Does that mean we should be grateful to them both for the election results? I think so.

The Comey explainer would be an inaugural fiasco

Ed Morrissey | December 21, 2016 | Hot Air

Which Inauguration Day event tickets will be tougher to get? An official President Donald J. Trump Ball, or an excruciating exercise in which James Comey tries to “prove” he wasn’t acting in a partisan manner? The latter might hold more promise for history, actually:

/…

Certainly Comey can step through his actions and demonstrate how he wanted to be completely transparent no matter what action he was taking, and that’s at least defensible. His July statement recommending no action on Hillary Clinton took place in the context of a very public investigation, and the FBI faced accusations of partisanship no matter what decision was reached. The only option Comey really had was to offer a thorough public explanation of the conclusion the FBI reached.

http://beta.hotair.com/archives/2016/12/21/new-event-on-the-inauguration-schedule-the-comey-explainer/

Comey seems to be considering it. That would just further ignite all the Left’s conspiracies. Bad enough what Comey did, it only adds more bricks in Hillary’s wall of blame.

More stupidity from Bill and Hillary

On the day of the electoral college vote, Bill Clinton explained their loss: Hillary just could not overcome “the Russians and the FBI deal.” Here comes the victim card.

She could not prevail against them.

CBS

“I’ve never cast a vote I was prouder of,” [Bill] Clinton told reporters after voting for Hillary Clinton in Albany, New York on Monday as one of the state’s Democratic electors. [Bill Clinton continued:]

“You know, I’ve watched her work for two years. I watched her battle through that bogus email deal, be vindicated at the end when Secretary Powell came out. She fought through that. She fought through everything. And she prevailed against it all but at the end we had the Russians and the FBI deal, and she couldn’t prevail against them,” he said. “She did everything else and still won by 2.8 million votes.”

Start with “bogus email deal”. Considering it grew out of the Benghazi investigation, which was her doing, it was her own server “deal.” She had it for four years and never stopped it. Then she said it was a mistake — one that lasted four long years, meanwhile 4 Americans were killed in a terrorist attack. But nothing bogus about it all.

Yet Hillary prevailed? Well, if you mean she beat being indicted. Even though America lost, big time, and it put our government at risk. But who cares about that? “She prevailed.” Then Colin Powell vindicated her? No he didn’t.

Hillary told her donors:

“He [Putin] is determined to score a point against me which he did. But also undermine our democracy.”

That would make Putin stronger than our democracy. Hillary gave him the propaganda win, along with validating his election influence. Except that Hillary’s campaign were the ones actually playing the Russian card on Trump 24/7 — with a big assist from media .

Another explanation from Comey for his actions?
Well, what difference at this point does it make?

What’s next, an official independent investigation into why Hillary lost? They might as well start the next election on inauguration day. “Viva la 20, stupid.”

Delegitimizing Obama’s Legacy

Obama always worried about someone trying to undermine his presidency and legacy.

Remember Mitch McConnell’s well-worn quote that his #1 job was making Obama a one-term president, which never did work out? Obama overused that one.

It turns out that the one person who has done more to delegitimize Obama and undermine his presidency was Obama. Being too stupid to realize it is just icing on the cake.

Spending all his time to get Hillary elected only illustrated the case against his legacy.

RightRing | Bullright

Making my list, checking it over

Let me check my end of the year list, not quite complete:

I mentioned the hypocrisy of the left.
I mentioned the evil nature of the Left
I mentioned the inability of the Left to relate to real, working people.
I mentioned the arrogance of Obama, Hillary and Democrats.
I mentioned how we are worse off now, practically than ever in history.

The world is more dangerous now than before Obama controlled the White House.
I wrote about reasons for supporting Trump, and some of the problems coming.

I mentioned what Islamists are doing to threaten and bring down America.
I mentioned political correctness, the favorite tool to push the Left’s agenda.
I said a lot about Russia, and where politicians failed to confront serious threats.
I talked about Christian victims and the Islamic agenda.
I mentioned most of the problems with ISIS and the caliphate.
I mentioned the stupidity of Democrats and some Republicans.
I mentioned the failure of the establishment and leaders to take people seriously.
I covered the mockery of Christians and their values everywhere.

I talked about the absurdity of the claim Trump was wrong for Christians.
I listened to all their absurd arguments on….well, everything.
I dignified their bafoonery by just talking about their schemes and motives.
I tried reasoning with the unreasonable Left.
I pointed out ruling class elitists and establishment don’t get it – and don’t care.
I’ve given much more time an energy to it all than they really deserve.

Check-a-roony

As to conclusions, well, that’s a deep subject. If enlightenment was the age of reason, then we are now in the age of anti-reason. That’s the point: the left no longer wants to explain, or even defend, what they do.

They just claim it is their inherent right to force their political ideology on everyone. And it is a political ideology. The harder it is forced down our throats the better they like it. The people who preach tolerance actually do not want to get along with anyone. Conflict is their means and their motive. Have you ever heard people talk so much about revolution while they were actually in control?

Hope and Change

Change is coming, change happened; but the naysayers are still wallowing in their denial. For eight years they talked about hope and “change.” Now it finally happened and boy are they pissed. We proved they really wanted no change at all, only total control.

Why didn’t they just say that instead of claiming to want change? Change you can believe in was total control, which is the only thing they do believe in. But total control does not require belief… only submission.

After the election, they are still campaigning only to overturn the results of the election. So they appeal to electors to overturn the results of the electoral college. They are never really satisfied, even when they get what they want. Or especially when they get what they want because then they just want more.

Red Scare

Hillary’s campaign and Democrats now complain about the influence Russia had in the election — or how much it hurt her. But then they claim Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million people. What is their point? So maybe they mean Russia hurt her electoral college path. Hmm, how’s that?

What about the Russiaphobia they spread about Trump? Do they care what effect that had? How about when Mike Morell, former CIA director, called Trump an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation? Do they really want to talk about the Russian effect? How about when they claimed Trump could not be trusted with the nuclear codes? But Hillary had a rogue server risking national security but they are talking about threats? Nuclear. The idea was to present Trump as a bigger security threat than Hillary.

What have we learned? As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Any means to their ends — or to clarify it, their means has no ends. Yet it is an incomplete list.

Now Michele Obama is out of hope, once again. No longer is she “proud” of America.
Fleeting pride didn’t take long. It makes me wonder what her hope was really in?

Feelings, “nothing more than feelings”:

[ABC]Obama said Russian President Vladimir Putin “is well aware of my feelings about this, because I spoke to him directly about it.”

Obama declined to say how the U.S. planned to respond, but White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday that Obama believes in a “proportional response.”

President Obama, the guy who promised Putin more flexibility in his second term, now says he told Putin to “cut it out” on DNC and Hillary’s campaign hacking. He warns the cyber threat is real…like the Russian threat, Syria, ISIS, and a near-term North Korea problem — all second only to that immediate Climate Change threat. Check!

RightRing | Bullright

Fake News or Harry Reid’s news

Okay, let’s write some fake news. I mean I’m bored.

So Harry Reid complains the Russian hacking influenced the election throwing it to Trump. Right. Then he claimed that Comey single-handedly influenced the election results for Trump. Slap the certificate of authenticity on that. Both are true, to Reid.

Now this means that Russia, Putin’s hacks and Comey with the FBI in unison all worked together to get Trump elected. We are talking a huge conspiracy, fake news there. Plus, Hillary’s people at Harvard said the media helped get Trump elected. Media-Russia-FBI-Comey.

It doesn’t stop there, turns out Reid is also against fake news. Here is Harry Reid giving his retirement lecture speech. He lashed out at Fake News. (HuffPo)

“We’re entering a new Gilded Age. It has never been more important to be able to distinguish between what’s real and what is fake… We have media outlets pushing conspiracy theories disguised as news. Separating real from fake has never been more important.”

He cited Pope Francis to bolster his case: (but Hillary also railed against fake news)

“[The Pope]said yesterday, and this is a quote: ‘The media that focuses on scandals and spread fake news to smear politicians risk becoming like people who have a morbid fascination with excrement,’” Reid said.

Echoing that,

Hillary Clinton took the opposite tone, calling fake news “a danger that must be addressed and addressed quickly.”

Then Reid went on to referrence George Orwell’s “1984” to make his case.

The king of fake news is very concerned about Fake News. It turns out that writing a report about Harry Reid and fake news is a good way to point out fake news. He brought in the Pope and George Orwell. Who is more creative than that? Any time you can use the Pope to help promote your conspiracies is a good day. Hillary, I found your culprit.

The Left: hypocrisy is thy name

I always stand prepared to be outraged at the depth of hypocrisy on the left. Then I am not really. But this issue is deeper than that. I’ve come to believe there are two kinds of hypocrisy at work. There is a standard blatant hypocrisy and then there is a more sinister, fundamental hypocrisy. The latter is what I see more and more of.

The election highlighted it. During the debates before the election, there were all the calls of Trump to accept the results of the election. All those now discredited polls had showed Trump losing and Hillary the unchallenged winner. It was obvious they said. Media had pointed out daily that there was no chance for Trump to win. They asserted that the election was not based on a popular vote, whether you like it or not, but on the electoral system. That system favors Clinton, they said. They told us it was all about getting over 270 in the electoral college.Again, that would put Hillary in the White House and makes it albeit impossible for Trump to meet that daunting uphill task.

Then there was Larry Sabato going from network to network telling us there really was no way for Trump to win. He would not say zero chance but he gave him very little chance. There were all those polls, which never seem to put Hillary down by much. They mostly had her with around a six point lead in states. Closer to election it was 3 or 4 points. (I know I am generalizing but it doesn’t matter — they gave her a heavy advantage)

So everywhere they could, they were looking for concessions from Trump. “Will you accept the results of election” system? Trump just refused to play their submission game. Hillary even said she was outraged saying that, for the first time in history, we have someone unwilling to say he would accept the results. At the time, I thought it would be ironic if he won and Dems refused to accept the results. But they kept repeating it was Trump who would not accept results and the rules, as they were laid out.

Then we had the election and people were surprised. First, surprised by the results; then by the denial and refusal to accept the results as they happened. Media did report it because they really had no choice. When AP declared the winner, they could not disagree. But almost immediately it became about the popular vote.

Democrats said we don’t know the final tally of the popular vote, and it went from there. They became obsessed with the popular vote count. Before the election, they said that regardless of popular vote count the results would be determined by the electoral college. So much for that.

Now that we have the results, this fits with all their other hypocrisy. They really don’t care about that; it doesn’t bother them. However, when you notice how rooted hypocrisy is in their DNA, you see the bigger problem. It is who they are, say one thing do another.

They make a big issue about something — digging in their heels — until it is inconvenient for them to hold that position. Then they turn on a dime to support the opposite position. That’s just the way it is with the left. They are always prepared to be hypocrites because it doesn’t matter to them. Their blatant hypocrisy means nothing to them because it is a fundamental tenant of their ideology, politics rules to the left. They will do and say anything to justify their political position at the time. (subject to revision)

This is the same type of fundamental hypocrisy we see in their foreign policy positioning. They were against warring mentality. Democrats stood for Libyan intervention and then Benghazi, right up to the minute they had to take responsibility for it. Then they were AWOL about it.

All along, Democrats played with the notion of Russian involvement and sorted ties to Russia. We heard these claims from everywhere. Hillary supporter. and confident, Mike Morell took to the editorial page calling Trump an unwitting agent of the Russia federation. Charges were fierce. They even accused Trump of encouraging espionage.

“It’s pretty clear you won’t admit that the Russians have engaged in cyberattacks against the United States of America, that you encouraged espionage against our people, that you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, and that you continue to get help from him, because he has a very clear favorite in this race,” Clinton said to Trump at the third presidential debate in October. — Politifact

Putin had also blamed Hillary for intervening in their election and stirring dissent afterward, a subject completely lost in the media. Yet Obama and his cohorts had been dabbling in other countries’ elections throughout both his terms, even in Israeli.

They went all-in behind the rise of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and elsewhere. Has Obama even visited Egypt since the coupe stabilized the situation? No, sort of odd considering he started out his apology tour with a Cairo speech.

Here starts the big story: blame Russia for the election results. Which is really funny because Dems claim Russians’ objective was to influence the election and undermine the integrity of our system. Mission accomplished. Democrats certify that Russia did influence the outcome, despite lack of proof. Since the election is over, given the results, Dems claim our electoral college system is not so great. Undermine the integrity of our election? Mission accomplished. How many ways can one challenge an election?

The very thing Dems accused Russia of trying to do, they willingly did themselves. No one can undermine our process as well as Democrats, when they set their minds to it. They embarked on a recount program and questioned the legitimacy of the electoral college. They tried to undermine that system by influencing the electorates, to get them to switch allegiance from Trump.

But Obama previously mocked the Russian geopolitical threat. Obama promised Russia and Putin he would be more “flexible” after his last election. Putin is still collecting.

If all Russia was trying to do was undermine the integrity of the process, then count Democrats in for that. But earlier they stood on the platform of integrity, declaring our example to the world of peaceful power transfer and our long established history of accepting election results — whether we like them or not. Scratch that!

First NYT reported:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said on Friday that despite Russian attempts to undermine the presidential election, it has concluded that the results “accurately reflect the will of the American people.”

The statement came as liberal opponents of Donald J. Trump, some citing fears of vote hacking, are seeking recounts in three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — where his margin of victory was extremely thin.

In its statement, the administration said, “The Kremlin probably expected that publicity surrounding the disclosures that followed the Russian government-directed compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions, including from U.S. political organizations, would raise questions about the integrity of the election process that could have undermined the legitimacy of the president-elect.”

But wait, Democrats were all about undermining the legitimacy of Trump even as a candidate. It was a personal thing to Obama, who declared Trump was unqualified from the presidential podium. Hillary and her operatives questioned Trump on nuclear codes.

“Nevertheless, we stand behind our election results, which accurately reflect the will of the American people,” it added.

They “stand behind the results?” Well, that is until they don’t. Democrats started a hashtag #AuditTheVote. Which is it, they stand behind the resuts or they don’t?

Independent Journal Review

Obama’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco told reporters on Friday:

“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent upon us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned.”

Added White House spokesman Eric Schultz at the daily press briefing:

“This will be a review that is both broad and deep at the same time.”

“Obviously, you can imagine a report like this is gonna contain highly, you know, sensitive and even classified information….[We’ll] make public as much as we can.”

So now they aren’t sure they will disclose the results. But isn’t doing an investigation an attempt to reassure the public and restore credibility in our system? Yet they let it be known, beforehand, that they are going to selectively report the results. Uh?

First Obama had claimed that he did not want to get involved in presidential election politics. Now he goes all in to investigate presidential election, questioning foreign involvement in our election process. See how this Hypocrisy thing works? First Obama lectured, and mocked, Trump on questioning our rigged system or the outcome of our election as ridiculous. Now he is the chief tin-foil hat in the process questioning the integrity of our election.

But then this is the same president who is claiming his administration is scandal free, too. I guess there is time enough to start one more scandal over the results of the election.

Funny how before the election, who cared? But we had how many hackings all over our government. One report is anyone who ever worked in government has had their personal information stolen. Did we hear Obama’s outrage about that? How about Democrats’ outrage calling for us to do something about it? We do know nothing stopped Obama, who could have taken action on any one of these hacks. But yet, he hasn’t. (at least that we know of, and we probably would know if they did)

Obama now tees up a Russia conflict for Trump, when he would do nothing on cyber warfare before. And he now warns Trump about the immediate “near term” North Korea threat. So all problems become elevated to red alert when Trump is sworn in. Media to follow suite. But hypocrisy? — Not a problem.

RightRing | Bullright

Fake News Is Obama’s Legacy

Fake news is the new code word, wolf whistle for Liberals. Media have made a cottage industry of naming anything remotely foreign to them a #FakeNews story.

So naturally the story of Pizzagate is now considered Fake News. Who really propels fake news stories? That would be the liberal Democrats. Lie whenever you have to; make it up to fit the purpose.

Well, we had an entire fake news construction of the disinformation campaign on Benghazi. Remember the video cause of Benghazi? Remember how it was up to us to prove that video narrative wrong? They withheld any evidence. Then they wrote the narrative that Benghazi was a manufactured story. Everything was a manufactured, fake story to them.

Before Benghazi, they wrote the fake news story ‘GM is alive and terrorism is dead’ — certainly no threat. So they went to any lengths to call Benghazi attack, even on 9/11, anything else but terrorism. Fort Hood was workplace violence. The fake news story of “hands up don’t shoot” went all across the media and is still repeated.

We had Solyndra and all those fake stories in their green agenda. Later, they went under and taxpayers money was lost. They lied about those.

But it was more than that. The whole Obamacare concept was designed, built and sold on lies. Constructed on deception. We call that fraud. If it was a private business it would be called false advertising. It would be labeled fraud or bait and switch marketing.

Speaking of fake news stories, Obama keeps saying he had a scandal-free administration. No media challenged him. Some things are so outrageous you know it’s a lie. But no one tells POTUS. I can already see the number one word in Trump’s presidency will be “lie.” Yet the word was banned under Obama’s reign.

Obama has a knack for lying. So virtually every time he addresses people he’s pushing fake news. Remember the JV team for ISIS? Remember terrorism has nothing to do with Islam? We found the intelligence was manipulated to deceive and paint a rosier picture. He didn’t want to hear bad news.

Then Obama always claimed to know nothing until he saw it in the media. Even though that would make him incompetent. But saying his administration was — until his last day — scandal-free is utter bullshit practically no one can believe. Still he repeats it. Reality has no impact on Obama. A fiction writer is his top foreign policy adviser.

He lied about Iran. He lied about the TPP trade deal. He lied that the Iran deal was not a treaty, to circumvent the Senate. Iran was fake news. He said there was no ransom for hostages. He said there was not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS. And that was a huge scandal. Scandal-free? Now he touts his great legacy which is fake news on steroids.

RightRing | Bullright

Awaiting Mitt Romney’s apology tour

After campaigning against and trying to sabotage Trump’s campaign/election, even his Republican nomination, Romney now contemplates the real consequences of issuing an apology to try to seal his Secretary of State bid. How far can he go?

I do hope he likes groveling but is it enough — after all he has done?

H/T to Gateway Pundit

Transition Team sources told Ed Henry from FOX News that Mitt Romney is preparing a public apology.

Mitt Romney is reportedly very interested in the Secretary of State job. (See)

But is it enough to apologize? And I don’t mean only to Trump but to all the people who supported or voted for Trump. He owes them plenty — whether he gets the job or not.

Remember he wrote a book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.” Ironic now that his appointment requires an apology just as a precursor.

Has anyone out there in Rightville considered what a Mitt Romney confirmation hearing would look like? I think I’d call it a smorgasbord for Democrats. They’ll eat it up.

Message to the Whiny Left and Democrats

Finally, I think it’s time for a personal message to Democrats. It’s time you carry you whiny, crying, petulant carcasses off the streets and soak in a little reality. Baste yourselves in liquid spirits if you must, but go knowing it’s over. You get no trophy.

That’s right, “Tuesday’s Gone With The Wind.” — Get over it.

Remember this Libs, you hypocrites?

Take your crying towels and “Move On”. Get a grip for Heaven’s sake. Your utopian hallucination has ended. Reality crashed the party. Trump is not leaving, deal with it.

Winning in a ‘feel bad’ sort of way

This should be an easy column to write on winning a national election that is the biggest of my lifetime. But it’s not, due to the overshadowing reality.

It should be as easy as basking in the glow of victory, however it has immediately been tampered by a media feeding frenzy. (I suppose I should not be surprised.)

For a flavor of that, there was a meltdown of sorts on CNN Wednesday on Don Lemon’s show. Already they are positioning and guessing what Trump will do, and considering the protests staging. Should have, would have, could have been a celebration. Media and Hillary tried to deny Trump’s celebration as long as they could.

CNN’s Brian Stelter said that media really missed seeing this whole thing, presumably the result forthcoming. He claims it definitely has some soul-searching to do. Really what soul-searching, how they failed to prevent Trump from winning? That is his implication.

Well, historian Douglas Brinkley was asked about comparisons to Dewey and Truman. He said, “oh, I think this is even bigger” than that. Then he seemed to encourage tempering their criticism of Trump in the immediate aftermath.

Stelter, for his part, said, “This was one of the biggest media failures of our generation.” He argued that everyone in the media has soul-searching to do.

Historian Douglas Brinkley went on to say that the healing process should begin and it’s not helpful to be “bleak” and “nihilistic.”

Toobin pushed back and said it’s not nihilistic to talk about how much power Trump has now. Brinkley said it’s unfair to dismiss Trump as a “right-wing cartoon.”

And then he ended up telling Toobin, “You’ve been dead wrong about this whole election!… We need to give people a chance right now!”

Watch above, via CNN.

See video at: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/youve-been-dead-wrong-about-this-whole-election-historian-battles-cnns-toobin/

Along with that there is Van Jones’ election night meltdown — panic mode.

People have talked about a miracle. I’m hearing about a nightmare,” he said. “It’s hard to be a parent tonight for a lot of us. You tell your kids, ‘Don’t be a bully.’ You tell your kids, ‘Don’t be a bigot.’ You tell your kids, ‘Do your homework and be prepared.’ And then you have this outcome and you have people putting children to bed tonight and they’re afraid of breakfast. They’re afraid of ‘How do I explain this to my children?’”

“This was a whitelash. This was a whitelash against a changing country. It was a whitelash against a black president, in part. And that’s the part where the pain comes. And Donald Trump has a responsibility tonight to come out and reassure people that he is going to be the president of all the people who he insulted and offended and brushed aside.”

See: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/whitelash-against-a-black-president-van-jones-blows-up-over-election-results/

So it was a whitelash. He interpreted this as a last gasp of white people to elect a president. But Trump has already been called all the names before and it continues. What’s another name? Talk about drama. There is no shortage of that on the liberal left. You have to wonder what about all the people Obama offended and insulted, often publicly on official occasions? So now we are guilty of coordinating in a whitelash.

No one reminds Van Jones that he supported the one who was in the White House when Jack Boot Reno sent her Feds to raid a home and deport Elian Gonzolez at gun point. The only time we’ve seen that, while she said nothing. Then remind him who was on the deportation side and who was on the asylum side.

Judging by all this, no “honeymoon.”

Obama went out to give his condolences to Trump for winning. Then he pledged full cooperation with Trump’s transition team.

Take a look here and here. Does that look like people eager to cooperate?

Then CNN’s Angela Rye political analyst came on in an emotional bloodletting about illegal immigration fears. They showed high school students now joining protests in San Fransisco, practically shedding tears as they march down the street speaking to positioned reporters. One girl was breaking down saying what Trump was calling all Mexicans. The anchor thanked her for her important perspective.

Sure, they are advocacy news now, no hiding it. They are reduced to liberal talking points that you hear from any Democrat, probably because of the close communications like we saw in Wiki Leaks. Bring on the kids — sounds better hearing it from them.

Here was CNN on election night explaining away Clinton’s refusal to accept results. When Lewandowski questions “where’s Hillary?” Van Jones told Corey he was being a horrible person. Somehow critics were not being fair to Hillary and treating Hillary humanely?

So now we are inhumane for expecting her to make a statement election night?

Also see Rush column, he’s getting nervous about demands for unity with losers.

Hillary, apology wanted in isle #1

Ahead of Al Smith Dinner, Cardinal Dolan says Hillary owes Catholics an apology

Lisa Bourne | Life Site News

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, October 19, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to disassociate herself from anti-Catholic statements made by her campaign chairman and said the remarks were “extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics.”

Asked about the anti-Catholic comments after speaking at The Bishop’s Respect Life Dinner on Monday night for the Diocese of Colorado Springs, Cardinal Dolan suggested that had other faith traditions been the target of the prejudiced remarks, there would have been a swift apology and absolute disavowal of them.

But as far as an apology from Clinton for the remarks demeaning Catholics, “Hasn’t happened yet,” Cardinal Dolan said.

Emails released last week by WikiLeaks showed Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri, both Catholics, in conversations with activists from two left-wing organizations. In the emails, Catholics were debased, with their beliefs being called “severely backwards.” Conservative Catholics also were accused of “an amazing bastardization of the faith,” and Rupert Murdoch was mocked for baptizing his children as Catholics in the River Jordan.

The U.S. Church’s bishops were slammed in the emails as well, referred to as “a middle ages dictatorship.”

Palmieri said in one of the emails she thought conservatives that had come to Catholicism did so because “they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” and that “their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”

Podesta admitted to helping launch a “progressive” infiltration of the Church in another email, and he took an active role in attempting to incite a liberal Catholic revolt against the U.S. bishops.

“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this,” Podesta wrote. “But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

The “Catholic Spring” Podesta referred to had been broached in the email by Center for Progress President Sandy Newman, who had pondered, how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or “who would plant them.”

Newman wrote Podesta:

Hi John. This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking … There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.

The statements “are just extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics,” Cardinal Dolan told ABC affiliate News Channel 13 on Monday.

“If it had been said about the Jewish community, if it had been said about the Islamic community, within 10 minutes there would have been an apology and a complete distancing from those remarks,” he continued.

“Hasn’t happened yet,” he stated.

The cardinal, who is chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, then said he’d like to see the Democratic candidate disassociate herself from the offending comments.

“I’m hoping that she’s going to distance herself from these very insulting remarks by her chief of staff,” Cardinal Dolan said.

He also told the news station that he trusts people to be guided by their moral convictions, and he expects people to be “acquainted with the issues.”

The Clinton campaign has not acknowledged the anti-Catholic emails, though they have been played down by at least one Democratic operative and Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine, also a Catholic.

Catholics, some of who have also called for Podesta’s firing, have roundly criticized the email comments.

Original article https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-dolan-clinton-owes-catholics-an-apology

Ordinarily, these should be defining comments of controversy. But the media yawns, even at the talk of organizing and supporting a revolution within the RCC. Those remarks should send tidal waves through both the Catholic Church and political circles.

Think it matters to people? It certainly doesn’t seem to matter one bit to Lamestream media. For Camp Hillary, it is just one more thing to deny and ignore. But people should be outraged at this by a presidential campaign.

Another controversial issue arose at the debate, where Trump mentioned the brutal late-term abortion process. Well, media and pundits were abhorred at that language and how Trump talked about it. Oh, one needs to be careful with language but careless with life? These are the times. Hillary’s rebuttal was as bad. But there is no defense for the indefensible…. and that is the problem.

No apology even for their comments endorsing a RCC revolution. Yet they call us out for how we describe partial-birth or late-term abortion that Hillary supports in lockstep with Planned Parenthood.

Hillary’s response to Trump was:

Well, that is not what happens in these cases and using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.

“Scare rhetoric?” — Or as Leftists often call abortion “reproductive autonomy,” and a “health care decision”. Most of us call it killing babies and the business thereof. But credit Trump with broaching the subject at the debate.

All radicals all the time — Clintonistas

Welcome to the truth inside the Hillary campaign. (video)

What about the protest at the Chicago Trump rally? Well, surprise. (which is no surprise)

It doesn’t matter about legal… or ethics, we need to win this M-Fer.

We knew they were behind all this radicalism, but it is what they do.

Ever heard of Democracy Partners? Oh, the dark Hillary campaign that no media dares report on. Alive and thriving via Hillary’s campaign.

Sometimes the crazies bite…. sometimes they don’t. Portraying people as psychotic…. all sinister dark creatures of Hillary’s campaign.

“We want it coming from the people, not the Party.”

“We’re starting anarchy here.”