Free Markets, Free People

Using the Pope to propagandize “climate change”

The newest Pope has found he has many detractors.  He’s been called a Peronist, Marxist and Communist. He’s also been accused of issuing statements on subjects he has no apparent knowledge.  But when all is said and done, he is the head of the still powerful Catholic Church.  And that is very useful to the President of the United States.  So Mr. Obama plans on using Pope Francis’ visit to the US to again propagandize climate change by attempting to use the authority of the Catholic Church (i.e. Pope Francis) to sway the masses.

The pope has been a prominent supporter of actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that many scientists blame for causing the Earth’s temperature to rise, causing more floods, droughts and other catastrophes.

Francis has framed climate change as a moral issue. Obama will likely use the pope’s time in Washington to draw attention to the challenge of global warming, and the need for putting away political differences in support of actions to reduce emissions.

The pope will also address a joint session of Congress following talks at the White House. In that address, he is expected to underscore points he made earlier this year in issuing his climate change “encyclical,” which outlines his thoughts on the issue of global warming. In the encyclical, he advocates for reductions in manmade emissions from fossil fuels.

But so far, “climate change” has been a political bust for Obama.  The US public is unenthusiastic about the subject, and certainly not buying into either the urgency or the sweeping changes he’d like to see his administration put in place.  Even US Bishops aren’t enthusiastic about the subject of “climate change”.

Obama, however, has declared “climate change” (the newest code phrase for “man-made global warming”) as one of the top priorities of his administration.  The problem is, it has no political traction.  So the job of Pope Francis, whether he knows it or not, is to be a source of traction.  His job is to give the administration a sort of “divine” blessing in its pursuit of “solutions” as well as serve as a propagandist for the cause to a still powerful segment of the US population.

You can expect him to fulfill his role, science be damned.

All of this is conveniently happening prior to the big December UN sponsored climate control talks in Paris. The obvious intent is to gain some momentum from the Pope’s visit even if real science has killed most of the momentum the alarmist side had prior to the discovery of fudged numbers, model inaccuracy and questionable “science” they used to support their hypothesis.

Expect Obama to ignore the evidence as well, and to embrace the Pope’s presentation as the “real deal”.

Who says the US can’t do propaganda?


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

21 Responses to Using the Pope to propagandize “climate change”

  • The Pope and Barracula are both strong advocates for Heinlein’s “bad luck”…for everyone BUT themselves.

  • Can’t….stop…..myself……


  • The Pope sees a big payday for poorer nations, but he should know that there is no “free lunch” as these nation will have to give up their “technological manhood” in return.

    Obama is drumming up those large “transfer payments” that never seem to get into the pockets of “the poor” but rather end up in some Swiss account.

  • They deserve each other. Hope the Pope enjoys being used while he’s forced to meet with Trans and gay “activists”

  • The formerly hippie generation Cardinals voting out of personal politics put him in office, hope they enjoy reaping what they sowed. Him being Pope is not unconnected to that mostly ‘waste of skin’ generation that is responsible for our own current political landscape.

  • The last few days with the appointment of the first gay Army Secretary, Ahmed Mohamed the juvenile hoax bomb clock (timing device) maker and the invite of transgender men and gay bishops to meet the Pope I’ve concluded that Obama sits down with a group of advisers and starts off the meeting with the phrase:

    “If I could do only one thing, what would be the one thing that would upset (x) the most.”

    • Yes. That it how our objections have been depicted & dismissed, getting our panties in a bunch over nothing because he’s Black. He feed that myth by purposefully doing thing the other side only considers ‘irritating to Conservatives/Republicans’ but to them not a big deal. Dragging out the Birth certificate nonsense, for example. They want their side to believe that out objections to things like the Iran deal are in the same vane(sp?).

      • But he’s as white as he is black. In fact, from a cultural standpoint, MORE white than black, having grown up on the mean streets of elite Hawaiian exclusive neighborhoods and schools.

        • See and this is why it’s so important that we consider skin color and other superficial aspects of a person when we’re making decisions about the content of their character.
          Also why we’re not allowed to question Big Ears because racists!
          And if you in fact look like Obama, questioning him makes you Uncle Tom, the inverse of Rachel Dolezal. You’re black but you identify as white, so you’re white, so white privilege, so racist.

          It all makes perfect sense if you’re an SJW/progressive, or if you’re on really good psychedelic drugs.
          I think that has to be a fair percentage of the Democratic party, considering their two chief candidates for President are a lying unaccomplished felon and an honestly avowed socialist.

  • As a Catholic, it’s hard to understand the world these days. Climate alarmism / global warming / climate change has been thoroughly debunked from a scientific standpoint, but the power-hungry continue to successfully profit from this canard. The Pontiff is obviously no scientist and has accepted this propaganda as gospel – pun intended. Earlier, in a statement of humility, relates ‘who [is he] to judge’, then the press somehow extrapolates that he’s for gay marriage? And his calls for rescue of the (now former) Christian populations in the Middle East get no traction. I get the fact that it’s all about the MSM and their agenda, but it remains a troubling quandary. The Pontiff should stick to the important aspects of our faith, leaving the hysteria to – well – to the hysterics.

  • Google “Bella Dodd” and “HUAC” and “Catholic Church.”

  • I find it very ironic that one of Pope Francis’ more recent predecessors (Pope John Paul II) was an ardent anti-communist. And now the current Pope appears to BE a Communist. Francis also appears to be the epitome of Lenin’s term “useful idiot”.

  • You know, to some extent being he’s a “man of God” I find myself surprised that more of them are not essentially communists – and by use of the term I mean PURE Communist – not these various shills that Lenin, Mao and so forth have fobbed off on the world for the last century.
    The idea that everyone contributes as they best can, everyone receives what they need, and we’re all healthy and happy, blah blah blah (good luck with that railroad!) certainly sounds like someone’s (unworkable) version of Heaven here on earth (did I say I don’t think you can make it work?)

    On the other hand the Catholic Church I grew up in was very very very aware of ‘human nature’ in that pretty much everything I thought, said, or did was likely to be a sin that would damn my soul to eternal punishment. Which only me spilling my guts about my evil to a genuine Catholic Priest, coupled with half a dozen Aves, a few Our Fathers and a sincere Act of Contrition could remedy. Monseigneur Shields would shout at us about a Sunday a month reminding us before the habitual second collection that our human sinful nature was going to send us all to perdition.

    So, I see why a Pope, apart from having this innate understanding that it was contrary to human nature thing, would believe it a wonderful template, though I’d probably be uncomfortable with the humans and society that managed to get it working in pure form.
    The idea that a Priest might think we should share our stuff with others, and try and quell our avarice and be good shepherd types of our fellow men isn’t that far from what I would expect of the guy.
    Why more are NOT basically pure communists at heart is what puzzles me, it certainly describes the storybook life of the average Middle Ages Catholic monk doesn’t it?

    • OTOH, even Adam Smith, who WAS a moral philosopher at least as important as an economics pioneer, wrote extensively that people could only really be happy if their focus was not greed and the amassing of wealth.

      He seems to have had the insight that acts of charity were, in fact, acts of utility to the giver.

      And, so long as someone is limiting themselves to persuasion, a call to give to others is not threatening or invidious. I have no issues with people helping each other, and endorse it. What’s interesting is that people DO help each other.

      The danger comes when compulsion is brought into the equation, which is what “Liberation Theology” does.

      • Compulsion was a big factor in Monseigneur Shields sermons, fear of punishment, in this case going to hell can be pretty potent stuff, even if your biggest sin is normal 12 year old lust for Andrea McManus in her Catholic school girl outfit and you haven’t quite gotten around to highway robbery or burning down the rectory.

        And I agree with Smith (and you and probably the Pope…) regardless of the fact that I’ve become a heathen somethingorother – real acts of charity feel quite good and leave me in a far better mood than being a grumpy nasty cheap bastard ever did.