Obama tells Ferguson “stay on course”

Gateway Pundit has the story:

President Obama met with Ferguson protest leaders on November 5th, the day after the midterm elections. The meeting was not on his daily schedule. He was concerned that the protesters “stay on course.”

What does that mean?

And why is the president meeting with the violent Mike Brown protesters before a verdict is reached in the court case?

The New York Times hid this in the 21st paragraph of their report:

But leaders here say that is the nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken leader might have led the way. “This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,” said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. “This is a movement where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop killing us.”

At times, there has been a split between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.

Some of the national leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a conversation about Ferguson.

According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”


Tough to stay on course with looting and burning down the city. I’m glad he could encourage them.The NYT found a creative way to describe violent protests as “less passive” Interesting how Obama knew what they are advocating.

But wasn’t it the same with the Occupy movement: not a single leader, social media etc?

Rosie is off her meds again

American Overlook

VIDEO Just When You Thought She Couldn’t Get Any More Idiotic, Rosie O’Donnell Said This

Rosie O’Donnell, who is known for her conspiracy theories surrounding the tragic events of 9/11, voiced her opinion on the bombings on ISIS in Syria and what she said stunned the entire cast of The View.

In this clip of the popular morning show, O’Donnell says, “I can’t get out of my head that Syria has a lot of oil.” The group of hosts went silent following her statement.

She seems to think the U.S. has decided to enter Syria because of its’ oil, not the fact that ISIS has been murdering Americans on video while also threatening our country. Her theory is slightly outlandish.

O’Donnell goes on to say that she believes there is a financial agenda backing the ISIS bombings in Syria.

Is this a serious theory to consider? Probably not considering the same woman believes that Muslim terrorists weren’t responsible for the 9/11 tragedies.

So Rosie is on her oil kick. You know she didn’t think that up all by her lonesome. And a financial agenda in her conspiracy. Yep, she figured out Obama, finally. She apparently can’t get the voices out of her head.

Tradition bites the dust on campus


Marriage at Notre Dame: From sacrament to sacrilege

Diana West covers university’s rejection of traditionalist student group

The National Catholic Register broke the most shocking cultural news of the week:

“A group of students at the University of Notre Dame has generated a campus-wide controversy by advocating that marriage between one woman and one man is better suited for children than same-sex ‘marriage.’”

Welcome to campus controversy 2014, where the subversives are traditionalists and, as we will see, the subversives control the establishment.

The Register continued:

“The group – known as Students for Child Oriented Policy (SCOP) – elicited negative letters to the campus newspaper and prompted hundreds of students to sign a petition calling upon the university not to recognize it as an official campus club.”

What comes next may not be surprising, but it remains gasp-worthy: Notre Dame refused to recognize the group favoring what we now know as “traditional marriage” as an official campus club. Why? The administration offered a thin excuse, saying the new club would duplicate the mission of two other campus groups that promote Catholic doctrine – one of which, it turns out, hasn’t updated its website since 2005. Meanwhile, according to SCOP’s prospective president, Tiernan Kane, his group doesn’t identify itself with a specifically Catholic mission, coming together instead as a non-sectarian effort to “focus on public policy as it relates to issues that specifically affect children.”

The Register reported that planned club activities would have included “presentations on Common Core and Indiana education policy, marijuana’s effect on young people’s brains, the United Kingdom’s anti-pornography policy and the problems associated with no-fault divorce.” The club’s position that traditional marriage is good policy is what drew campus fire.

Diana West’s latest book, “American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character” reveals jaw-dropping stories of treason you’ve never heard

There’s a lot here, so let’s take it from the top. First, we have just learned that on the campus of one of the leading Catholic universities in the country, the concept of same-sex marriage isn’t just popular, it’s entrenched to the point where it is controversial to prefer the traditional model – even to argue that heterosexual marriage is better social policy for children. In fact, the belief that a child is better off with a mother and a father rather than two mothers or two fathers is so unpopular that 630 students signed their names on a petition to prevent it from being promoted by an official campus club. […/]

Read more: http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/marriage-at-notre-dame-from-sacrament-to-sacrilege/

As she eloquently points out, it is not so much that they disagree but the strength of disagreement to the point of silencing. And to do it in such unified lockstep that what once stood for principle is replaced by that which is driven by pure political correctness and ideology. Politics trumps tradition.

This was evident in the great Notre Dame protest in May, 2009. That’s when Notre Dame requested Obama come to speak, offering him a coveted honorary degree. Okay, but that was not their only offense. To understand Notre Dame’s heritage as a Catholic University is to understand the values consistent with that heritage. Chief among them is the issue of life which was foremost to many protestors. However, what happened in that process was what really outraged people, students and alumni.

It would be a given that protestors would come out against giving Obama such honorary status, as the most pro-abortion president that we’ve had. But the wrath of the University came down on the protestors. They tried to shut them down and had many protestors arrested and charged. Charges which pended long after the event.

Barack Obama did speak and received his doctorate. The university explained at the time that it was in the spirit of tolerance and diversity of opinion that it invited and honored him. Okay, but the intolerance and prosecution of protestors never dawned on them. See, they can use diversity and tolerance as convenient rationale, but then use outright silencing or banning techniques to suit political correctness.

CNN May, 2009

Addressing a sharply divided audience at the storied Catholic university, Obama conceded that no matter how much Americans “may want to fudge it … at some level the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.”

“Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction,” he said. “But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”

The commencement ceremony was boycotted by a number of graduates dismayed by the university’s decision both to tap Obama as its commencement speaker and to give him an honorary degree.

The president is a supporter of abortion rights and federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research — positions that are anathema to traditional Catholic teachings.

Note his words when he knew the controversy he created. He actually says views are irreconcilable but lectures (others presumably) not to reduce differing views to caricatures. Homophobes or “Bible thumpers” anyone? No, that is exactly what the left does patently when disagreeing with someone or a group who does not swallow their view. And they declare the “debate is over”. All following the same Alinsky tactics Obama practices.

Now we see in this episode those tactics in full display again, against the very traditions America was founded on. Have we moved that far from our social mores that we now repel anything related to our traditions? Those social mores cannot coexist with their agenda, in the Left’s world….and they aren’t meant to. The progressive Left is married to the political agenda, making their political correctness even worse, and renders all outside it obsolete.

So Obama’s words were just as disingenuous as ever. But it’s the Left who has reduced anything and everyone else to caricatures. Yet he is wrong again because on all levels the left is intolerant of views, not just on “some level”. But this is par for Obama to caution people against politicizing something while actively politicizing it himself.

RightRing | Bullright

Surprise, biggest political donors not Republican

None of the Top 10 Biggest Political Donors are Republican

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 18, 2014 2:20 pm

The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) released its list of top all-time donors. It totaled contributions fro 1989 to 2012 from PACs and individuals affiliated with the heavy hitter organizations.

CRP designated each of the heavy hitters as Democrat, Republican, or “on the fence,” meaning between 40 and 59 percent was donated to each party. In some cases, percentages did not add up to 100 due to third party donations.

None of the heavy hitters in the top 10 were Republican (three organizations in the top 10 were on the fence). A Republican-leaning organization did not make an appearance on the list until number 17.

Details: http://freebeacon.com/none-of-the-top-10-biggest-political-donors-are-republican/

Doesn’t quite fit the narrative. Surprise!

RightRing | Bullright

Pope Francis, a man for the media

The Pope. the media, and their immaculate perception

Sometimes popularity is just that.

This is time to inject another popular subject, the Pope. (some comparison is in order) Since he became Pontiff, Francis has enjoyed great reviews. On the surface it seems to be all about likability. But as with Obama, it is much more. Now Time has Francis on the cover. With Obama, media would have your opinion based on his sweeping likability and charisma, despite his statements and actions to the contrary. Likability rules.

As Pope he has ventured on a different path, some of it good and some controversial. Will he make controversy the norm rather than the straight and narrow? Time will tell. (pardon the pun) For media and fellow travelers, they found plenty to praise him about and do. It is uncanny how media are such fans. I don’t remember these circumstances before. They still took issue with John Paul II, and they definitely took exceptions with his successor when they could. And before him, Pope St Pius condemned “Modernism” as the “synthesis of all heresies” which spawned a flurry of criticism.

There is always some public scrutiny to the Pope, some of it on the hierarchy of the Church in Rome. Still it is there. Again, remember the secular Left and their disagreement with religion Christianity and the church in general. Of course, there’s the separation of Church and State crowd, who never find much likable about Christians, evangelicals, or the Catholic Church. Now comes glowing praise for Francis. Nothing adequately explains it. Sure they use him — or their perception of him — to criticize his predecessors and the Church. Does anyone notice their targeted praise? Anyone believe they suddenly came to their senses and changed course, just as Francis came on the scene?

But if media had its wish, they aren’t too proud to say Francis sort of fits their vision.(so it seems) It doesn’t change them. (Jesus is the only one that could change their hearts — Apostle Paul was an example of that) They applaud most of his decisions because, much like Obama, they think they know who he is – better than everyone else. So far, Francis has done little to dispel their notions.

To some, it’s nice to have press in general as an ally for the Pope. (that should sound alarms) It seems too good to be true. Careful what you wish for. Nevertheless, they continue their romance. They are drawn by his humanity. They are casting their vote for so-called “social justice”. Where are all those separatists and critics now? But like the process when the Left was smitten by Obama, Francis has not experienced real dissent either. … or maybe he won’t as long as he remains agreeable to the Left. They might even defend him.

My question would be does anyone see a mutual lasting alliance here? If so, it might start to resemble the Russian model.(in previous post) Maybe not exactly but in the mutual respect for power, ultimately faced in the same authoritarian direction. (as long as politics hold ) Given progressives’ infatuation with Francis, it might be worth considering that materialism is the underpinning for their state/Church relationship in Russia. Is that where this alliance is headed? It may not sound like Francis but, again, what does it matter? The Left gets to frame all things – and they’ve defined him so far.

Listen to who praises the Pope, who praises Putin, and who praises Obama. See it doesn’t really matter what or who the Pope is, it’s who the media thinks he is that counts. Well, since they think it is their job to define everything, why shouldn’t they get to define the Pope? What is to prevent them?

For now, the lamestream is in frenzy-mode hanging on Pope Francis’s every word. (visions of campaign candidate Obama) It is possible that he is not the progressive socialist the Left thinks he is. But because he comes from S.A, particularly Argentina, and has great humanity, he lends himself to their mold. Once media defines something it is hard to change.

And there is some controversy over what the Pope actually said  – exclusively in the English translation. (see article)  Further documented here.

Now the Pope has enough defenders and I am not on the short list, but someone does appear to be taking liberty in translating his words. Slight of hand? For what reason?

Note: progressives are not above slight of hand either. In fact, it is their forte. (For example, “level playing field”, “hatespeech” etc.)

As the authority, JMG, says: (2nd link)

willfully mistranslated, to give Certain Types of Politician very desirable “papal cover” and this is , happening completely by design and, sadly, it’s going according to plan.”

Then suddenly you have Obama referencing the Pope’s words in a scripted speech on inequality. Coincidence? Barry is not above borrowing the words of someone if he thinks it helps make his case for his political ideology. It’s very convenient.

Apparently, just like media, Barry’s teleprompter found a new source. So Elizabeth Warren, Governor Deval Patrick move over, and using Warren Buffett is getting a bit old.

RightRing | Bullright

Students learn white voters rejected Obama due to race

St. Clair County 4th grade book says white voters rejected Obama because of race

DUPO, IL – Fourth graders in Dupo Illinois are reading a biography of Barack Obama that’s raising eyebrows among St. Clair County parents. The book, which supplements the school’s Common Core curriculum, blames television for the negative behaviors the first African-American president picked up as a teen:

The book – brought to the attention this week of those on the “Moms Against Duncan – MAD” Facebook page, goes on to say white Americans were hesitant to vote for a black president, and that Obama pushed the race issue to bring the nation together.

“But some people said Americans weren’t ready for that much change. Sure Barack was a nice fellow, they said. But white voters would never vote for a black president. Other angry voices were raised. Barack’s former pastor called the country a failure. God would damn the United States for mistreating its black citizens, he said.”

More at Illinois Review

Surprise, what change they got! Bringing people together? He doesn’t seem to be so confused about who he is now.

Barry Soetoro or Barack Obama can’t take any personal responsibility for what he did years ago, so how could he ever take any responsibility for what he currently does in office? They might have included some of that sentiment in their propaganda curriculum. They could call it critical thinking.