Dangerous Has No Parallel: war by other means

Democrats (or progressives) have bequeathed us the most dangerous times. There are hardly any parallels. But if you did mention any, everyone would scramble to talk about that other time not this one.

It is a direct result of what Democrats have done and continue to do. We are careening toward a space that none of us should want to go. Yet Democrats are full speed ahead.

Two things serve as illustrations. The first is a complete reversal from the talk in 2016. When Republicans had an unprecedented array of candidates, we heard a drumbeat that no one could beat Hillary Clinton. They even had Bernie on the same par.

Until they did get a bright idea saying that, according to polls, the only guy who could beat Hillary and presumably Bernie was John Kasich. They told us he alone had the best chance of winning in 2016, even if he could not manage to win the primary.

How times change. Now in 2020, all the polls suspiciously show every top candidate on the left beating Trump. Is that a laugh? And coincidentally, the top Democrats have a 9 or 10 point lead. Where have I heard that before?

I think the left needs a different calculus though. Notice how they rank Democrats with Biden at the top and down the list — and he has a large lead over others. I’d like to see a completely different ranking considering the times. Why not rank them by threat level or who is the most dangerous? That would be useful.

For instance, one of their candidates is Inslee. Sure he is not one of the top contenders but he certainly has a dangerous factor. He is so green he can’t see straight and wants to abolish coal. Basically he wants the biggest war on energy we have seen yet. If it destroys America, they don’t care as long as they did it “green” it would be something to be proud of. Place your bets.

Bernie is a complete danger to everything else that makes America work. We don’t know exactly how he could and would do any of it. That leaves executive order as his only means. But he does have enough of a commie, socialist base to make him dangerous.

Biden, well, he is no stranger to selling out America. And he never had a foreign policy that worked. He could be a gift to China or N. Korea. And you know about their deal with Iran. Plus he would bring back all the same actors as we just got rid of in there. And Deep State would be rejuvenated. The myth that he has some understanding with blue collar working people is hilarious. Yet the media have sold that lie long enough.

The whole purpose of guys like Joe or the others is that they don’t want a great economy. Their goal is the opposite. And they want everyone begging at the door of federal government. Biden being some kind of uniter? Well that’s just not how any of this works.

Elizabeth Warren, if she doesn’t scare the hell out of every sane person, I don’t know what would. In fact, that is her whole gig, threats and intimidation. She wants everyone subservient to all-powerful government. That would be the best setup for pure socialism you could ask for.

Now Democrats have moved on again in their wish list of agenda items. Next up, let’s talk about reparations. While they are all out on the campaign trail talking about unity and healing divisions, they are all pushing the reparations train now. Nothing more unifying than that. A bloody civil war was not enough for these people.

How about reparations for the most racist institution in the last century, the DNC? It was actually built on racism.

If those primers aren’t enough to get your danger juices flowing, then there are Dems’ daily positions and reactions to hard current events as they happen, to give you a glimpse into their collective mindset. There is always the tried and true hate America plank of the party. The anti-American wing has eaten the entire party.

Shout out to the borderless and lawless agenda here. But it is not some small marginal group of the far left anymore. So the calls to abolish ICE weren’t enough of a clue? How about the cop killers that get radio silence from the party? Better yet, undermine any remaining control of the border – or its legal controlling authority. Not just against the wall, they are against any enforcement of our borders or our laws. And they take to the streets on a moments notice to protest our enforcement of law and order. Heck, they are organized in such a way as to facilitate and encourage illegal immigration. And they make no bones about the fact that they give illegals preference over law-abiding American citizens.

How about those sanctuary cities? Oh, I’m sorry, did I mean sanctuary states now? The main purpose of Democrats, more and more these days, seems to be to facilitate crime waves and defend the criminals and those who harbor them. Then blame any cause of it on bad America.

Might as go all the way, while they are at it. Onward to late term abortions right up to the delivery date. Let’s even put that up for grabs, just in case you did not avail yourself of killing the baby at first chance, try try again. Who can say no to that agenda anymore? Who could draw arbitrary lines on institutionalized baby killing?

Even that is not quite enough to quench the appetite for evil. What they need to do is get rid of the Hyde Amendment. There cannot be any room for a wall in our government against directly subsidizing killing babies. Better still; just remind us all that abortion is a pillar of our economy. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Hadn’t seen enough of this anti-American sideshow yet? Well there is great news for you, then. How about a basic war on the bill of rights? How about a war on freedom and religious speech? What are progressive values without that? It’s a great fundraiser too. That would eliminate half the problems in the country if they could just tear out the heart of freedom. The rest of the agenda would come a lot easier.

And take out the 2nd Amendment.

While they are all for resistance to this president, administration and legitimate election results; they are all about limiting any resistance to their agenda by any means necessary. Fill in the blanks there too numerous to mention. Just say nothing is off the table.

Right Ring | Bullright
Bernie

Losing Our Posterity

Some percentage of people may have had an idealistic childhood and memories of it. There are others today who might think many people are romancing their childhoods too much. There is plenty of nostalgia around to lend credibility to the “golden days of yesteryear” concept. There’s also reason to think some people resent that.

As this debate goes back and forth, some also worry what the future will bring for our posterity? If you witnessed a decline to those good bygone days, you are not alone.

But liberals or progressives generally do not like us having a rose-colored view of the past. No, they lecture us about “moving forward.” In fact, they go out of their way to paint the past as the bad old days. Ripping out statues or old traditions are symptoms of their disdain. Now we even have politicians saying America was never that great.

So why bother stating all this? Because of the current debacle in Washington. We are very concerned about the security of our border, and illegal migration in particular. There sure is a split in left vs right over this. We hear anecdotes from the left romancing “historical immigration” as a sacred altar. Odd for people that look at America as mostly bad in the past to sing praises on immigration. That’s another matter.

The theories and skepticism about the impacts of this “illegal immigration” – invasion — continues on both sides. Why does it seem one side is in favor of it, embracing open borders, while the other side sees plenty of harm in the policies? That is another good question. I’d like to stay with their positions for a moment.

The progressive left wants this flow of undocumented people to continue. They don’t seem too concerned about the ballooning numbers either, or chain migration policies. None of those negatives seem to matter. Wearing blinders, they only want to see positives.

We know elections and politics are a big factor in their borderless rationale. And that brings us to the census question of citizenship the Left has itself in knots about. If illegals can’t vote in federal elections, legally, yet, then why are Leftinistas so adamant about not counting their non-citizen status? The higher the population in an area, the more representatives it can get. There’s one goal of the left laid bare.

But I suggest illegal immigration in huge numbers is a destabilizing force. Who would want that? Again, in my opinion, I’d say the left realizes that too. However, one of their goals could be to destabilize the country. Could the left want to destabilize the South especially? That would be in keeping with their vendetta of animosity against the South. It would be payback for a lot of reasons. But it also works politically to destabilize the South, by dividing people. Ever think about that?

Slowly they are trying to destroy any “myth” — as they call it — of the good old days. This destabilization and population change puts distance between that past and today onward. Thus, why they are not concerned about the huge numbers in the invasion. They like the consequences. That in turn would effect our posterity going forward. It also helps kill off any legacy of the South. I’ll take my theory over the law of unintended consequences.

Right Ring | Bullright

Barry, Hillary downplay Sri Lanka victims

The dynamic duo of revision are back at it. Almost synchronized

Hillary: “On this holy weekend for many faiths, we must stand united against hatred and violence. I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.” – 1:17 PM – Apr 21, 2019

Obama: “The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers in Sri Lanka are an attack on humanity. On a day devoted to love, redemption, and renewal, we pray for the victims and stand with the people of Sri Lanka.” — 10:02 AM – Apr 21, 2019

Surprise, they call it the exact same thing. We are not Easter People. We are Christians.

The Bible explains they were first called Christians at Antioch. Apparently Hillary now wants to rewrite the Bible, it seems Benghazi wasn’t enough for her.

But for a pair of subversive deniers that did what they did on Benghazi, should it surprise anyone that they want to downplay Christians as victims? You could not get either of them to do or say anything about Christian persecution. Barry loves saying Mooslims.

Everything morphed into some mealy-mouthed dangerous world or humanity thing.

Just try to name one group of people who have been at war with civilization and humanity, who do not accept anyone’s life as legitimately justified but theirs? It’s a difficult question. A people who hate everyone else and think it is their job to cause war and chaos everywhere in the name of their religious faith. (and I don’t mean Democrats)

It’s even worse than that. Since his remarks, the proud Barry worshipers carry and defend his statement using whatever means they can, like always. But the truth is he just couldn’t single out Christians as the dominant victims. He couldn’t do it.

For the secretary of evil, Hillary, by next week she could just say “oh, what difference at this point does it make anyway who they were?”

It’s only a vivid reminder of the nightmare those eight years were. And next, maybe Obama could talk about the Crusades again, being brutal or the intolerance of Christians. Then he will use the pronoun Christians.

He never has a problem referring to Muslims when they are victims. He doesn’t call them Ramadan worshipers. He could hardly call Jews “Sabbath observers.”

But for us Christians, we are labeled Easter People as “Easter Worshipers.” So they were attacked for their faith but Obama cannot even mention that faith by proper name. Then he also has a toxic opposition to saying “Radical Islamic Terrorists” He just can’t do it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Who’s Sorry Now?

What an abortionist had to say about deciding to stop after doing them for years.

Live Action (read here)

Besides her pro-abortion philosophy, Aultman gives two other reasons why she became an abortionist:

“I also could make a lot more money doing abortions than I could make working in an emergency room. I enjoyed the technical challenges of the procedure and prided myself on being really good at what I did.”

More: https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-abortionist-ted-bundy/

So give her some credit for changing and stopping. But she did make a lot of money doing it and probably provided her a nice and comfortable lifestyle, until she did.

Then add this:

“I probably murdered more people than Ted Bundy or any of the mass murderers if you consider all the abortions that I did,” she says.

Consider that the abortionist and woman having an abortion may have the same economical motivations for their actions. I just never heard it put in such direct terms before. Well, I find it awfully hard not to make some deductions about that.

This opens a Pandora’s box in philosophical terms. You go to school to study medicine for the purposes of using it to fix people and save lives. Then you go to work using the same knowledge and talent to extinguish lives. How does the latter justify the former?

Should it take three scenarios to sound warning bells that something is wrong with this?

I’m not sure what to think of it all. Chew on that.

The Moral Of The Story

Let me start this personal rant by saying if anyone thought I was one of them there tongue-tied Christians when it came to the flock, you can count me out on that strategy,.

In fact, there is an awful lot to criticize among Christians today but I usually refrain. Such is the exception on this occasion. Allow me to get my rant hat on.

First a little background on this particular one. There’s a guy that floats mostly on the margins now but is quite full of himself. No, not Jim Wallis or one of the other infamous leftist preachers, take your pick. They aren’t quite in his league.

This one is proud to say he rose in ranks with Jerry Falwell (Sr) back in the day with the Moral Majority. Chuck Baldwin thought of himself as Jerry’s right hand man that would one day probably take over the movement, if anything happened to Falwell.

However he did it, he became pretty full of himself to the red hot narcissist, radical level. He’s now moved on to sort of a solo hologram movement, within smaller Christian circles, in the style of any of many conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones out there. He’s a former, still recovering in my view, Democrat liberal who doesn’t know or want to admit it.

As for me, I used to think at least on rare occasion he would get a nut or two. But these days it’s clear where the nuts have all gone. I just can’t tolerate his rhetoric any more, which got even worse than it was. He’s a self-styled critic of everyone else, which conveniently leaves him on top of his own hill, with a small loyal following still. Diehards.

This guy did run for president though when he formed a rout against much better known, former Ambassador, Alan Keyes when he was running for president. See, he used his muscle in the Constitution Party ranks to oust Keyes. Well any moral authority Chuck Baldwin still had went out went out the window about then. What little he had anyway.

Baldwin fancies himself as the speaker for the Christian political movement though he isn’t. He dreams big, if only they would listen to him. His shtick is attacking fellow Christians on the right, a common target today. But he specializes in attacking them and the Republicans the way McCain did. Meaning he doesn’t reserve much animus for liberals or Democrats.

No, he’s an inside player who mocks Rush Limbaugh or any other big talkers on the right. He’s the guy you would want on your team only if you were plotting a coup from within.

Back to preaching. He did start up and build a good sized church in Florida. Then several years ago announced he’d be moving to Montana to settle. Big change, well, maybe what he thought. He already had a radio show and the necessary political capital. He could always draw from Christian networks with his tough talk and rhetoric.

Oh and he also feels that churches shouldn’t take 501 status so they can be free to speak out on politics and abortion and so on. Those who don’t are enslaved or just ignorant.

Since then he has gotten even more vocal on his political positions. Maybe he’s planning another run, I don’t know. But he keeps up his forte for attacking Christians from within. That is any but the big liberal leaders. You don’t find him railing against those or Dems much these days. I guess he thinks we are the ones who really deserve his ire. And he has plenty of that to give them.

He boasts of flattery he received from icon Howard Phillips – another organizer on the right. He got the right endorsements from leaders of movements, enough to prod him on. One wonders if they were feathers in his hat or only stepping stones to give him street cred with conservatives. I haven’t decided. His so-called hard line positions seemed to have morphed into deep-seeded biases. The object of which are firmly directed at the Christian right and what he terms Republican enablers. Fed up with both Democrats and Republicans who he calls worse and more dangerous than the former. The usual anti-fare plays well in the CP and with disgruntled conservative Republicans.

Chuck Baldwin’s objective is less clear.

His stands, if you could sum them up, come off a lot like disenchanted liberals. He pushes the freedom thing, styling himself a Constitutionalist and bill of rights expert along with a historian. Sure there is enough to attack Christians on today. Though he takes a glee in doing it where I reserve mine for the right occasions without taking great pride in it. But he just never has much fire in the belly left for progressives and liberals now, as if they don’t exist and Republicans are the only culpable targets of opportunity.

His conservative positions are drenched in popular liberal antiwar and foreign policy notions the way Ron Paul’s was, with extra passion and a bitterness that exudes.

Then comes his latest column. Usually it includes his standard screed with a few current issues thrown in to season the pot. Exactly as he did in this piece. What are his favorite taunts? Well, there is always conspiracy stuff and always a rant against Israel into the anti-war rants. His angle is on attacking media as Jew controlled rather than the MSM. He has a particular distaste for Trump and basically echoes any of the left-wing talking points about him. A common dead giveaway. Like you know where he takes his news cues from. The Jews control Hollywood too, in case you didn't know that.

But his favorite line of attack script in this piece was Christians don't get it. They just think they do. And if you don't agree with his stands on issues then you are one of his chosen targets. Doubly so for supporting Trump. I never heard this ferver about Obama. He sometimes mocked our anger at Obama and failure to concentrate on the Christian Republican side of the isle. Like we needed circular firing squads under Obama. Christians were the real problem. That is where we are, apparently we don't get it – if we ever did.

The implications here are strong. He knows much better.

Therefore, we are the problem not the solution. He being the much wiser and studied on the matter does get it. He does not have the flaws in understanding that we do. And his loyal following is attuned as well. But they share no blame in any of this. He is the only one who does get it, in the end.

In that arrogant reasoning, this column fit him like a well worn glove because it touched all the highlights from Jewish controlled media to attacking our cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia with the murder of Khashoggi. Mostly they are your typical liberal fare wrapped in a warm blanket of Christians are too stupid to know. Somehow I cannott picture Paul going on a lecture tear like that saying you people just don't get it about the Roman thing.

I hear the same tired mantra directed at Christians from the Left. Obama at the Prayer Breakfasts come to mind. Amazing that the world is still spinning on its axis with all the culpable blame of Christian conservatives. It seems to be reversed. I hear little practical advice coming from this (or these) critics of current political culture. Do they get it?

Tell me the difference between this snipe agenda and the Left’s popular Resistance?

Right Ring | Bullright

The Threat Within America

In their own words:

“We oftentimes had these debates and discussions about ‘out of the streets and into the suites’ — that was the term that was used to describe the swan song of the civil rights movement. … He made a decision and thought he could make a difference by being on the inside.” [emphasis added] — Socialist Workers Party member and University of Minnesota Professor August Nimtz on long time friend Keith Ellison.

See: https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Ellilson_Burn_This_Book.pdf

Of course Ellison thought he could make a difference by being on the inside. We know that is what he is there for. Most radical leftists start by believing they can make a difference. Then position themselves or act accordingly to carry it out.

Radicalism is not a spectator sport.

H/T to The United West

From the foreword of “Burn This Book” by Trevor Loudon:

“On July 17, 2018, Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota wrote Amazon CEO Jeffrey Bezos, demanding that his company censor books and other products by those deemed to be “hate groups” by the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center. He called for such materials still in Amazon warehouses to be “destroyed” over the next three months and an end to the company’s publication of similar “physical and digital materials.”

There is reason to believe that you are reading the impetus behind Keith Ellison’s call for book burning. In the course of a July 3rd interview with author Diana West on our nationally syndicated “Secure Freedom Radio” program, I mentioned that we would shortly publish a book about the Congressman’s ominous past and present ties to Marxist and Islamist groups and their agendas.

Since the hard left monitors our show assiduously, word of this publication may well have reached Mr. Ellison before the 17th. And, as the Center for Security Policy Press uses Amazon’s CreateSpace service to publish its many monographs and books, censoring such works – past, as well as future – could prevent readers from seeing this one. That is because the Center for Security Policy is one of the organizations the discredited Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has falsely characterized as a “hate group.” By pressing Amazon’s Bezos to use the SPLC as the arbiter of what content can be published or maintained in inventory, Rep. Ellison could achieve the censorship of CSP’s products without spedifying us as the target.

As this book by Trevor Loudon amply demonstrates, such stealthy subversiveness is the stock-in-trade of Keith Ellison. His associations dating back to his involvement with the Nation Islam as a student at Wayne State University and continuing to his present —and ongoing —involvement with Muslim Brotherhood fronts and his role as chairman of the radical House Progressive Caucus, Keith Ellison’s record is one of unbroken ties to extremists committed to subverting our country.“

This insight is all the more alarming in light of a dangerously mistaken, but widespread assumption: When an elected official in the United States swears an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, they are presumed to be truthfully saying they are able and willing to do that. Consequently, such representatives of the American people in the U.S. Congress are not subjected to the sort of background investigations aimed at confirming that assumption that is required of, for example, postal employees, securities personnel and school bus drivers.

Unfortunately, as author, filmmaker and national security expert Trevor Loudon documents exhaustively in this volume, Rep. Keith Ellison’s many and longstanding personal associations with groups openly hostile to the principles and even the existence of the U.S. Constitution, would likely make it impossible for him to to pass even the most cursory of security checks.”

Wow, I can think of nothing to add to that. Book is here in PDF form.

Also: Keith Ellison, who does NOT have a MN license to practice law, yet is running for MN Attorney General.

Trump’s America: down is up and right is wrong, hate is the rage

I thought it would be fun to list some of the many ways things are now reversed or running backward from the previous 8 years. Maybe it’s upside down in general.

    • The stock market goes up and causes major panic in mainstream media.
    • Any good news is now considered toxic. Bad news is good news and rewarded. Thus leaks of any spec of bad. Progress is undermining gov’t or the Trump administration.
    • Anyone who supports, compliments, or credits Trump for anything is a default target of the Left. Anyone who condemns him in the most vile terms is celebrated.
    • If MSM has to report statistical good news, unemployment, jobs, etc., they must trace it to Obama. Credit Trump with nothing and Obama for everything.
    • The Left credits Obama with teeing up the economy. Well, if teeing up means standing on the throat of the economy. He set us up for growth nicely.
    • They credit Obama for good news when he’s been out of office for a year and half. Look, he had eight years. So why wasn’t he hitting these numbers?
    • Everyone should now, collectively, disrespect the office of the President — or anyone in his administration. Any respect for the office is punished.
    • We went from how could anyone say “no” to a job in the administration to how could anyone say “yes” to taking a job?
    • Being happy about the direction of the country is suddenly a bad thing.
    • Nazi comparisons are very in vogue now. Yes, after years of being taboo, everything in the US suddenly has a Nazi parallel.
    • You get punished or blacklisted for talking well about Trump.
    • Being in the state of resistance or sedition is the only acceptable position.
    • Democrats are resisting democracy.
    • You cannot impeach Obama on any grounds. The first Unimpeachable President. But now you can impeach Trump as soon as he enters office.
    • AG’s now have to be recused from everything; as opposed to being the private partisan wingman for the president and accountable for nothing.
    • The seditious cult of Resistance says Repubs supporting Trump are cult-like.

But you cannot bullet point this:

The Left started this narrative that Trump should be on trial, for what? Special Counsel hasn’t told us. Yet Hillary Clinton was given a pass on clear criminal corruption, and her investigation was a subversion of justice. Self defense became obstruction of justice.

Now the Left’s narrative is that we cannot go after Obama, the Clintons, or any of their loyalist corruptibles because they are no longer in office. They are private citizens, immune from suspicion. But they started the Trump investigation, or inquisition, when Trump was only a private citizen, a businessman and never before held office. Then they want to impeach him for the same trumped up, pre-office reasons.

Foreign relations changed too.

Half the populations of Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela, and a good part of Mexico, woke up one morning and decided that they all have a guaranteed right to asylum status in America. An epidemic? All these people are hardly persecuted in their own country, with no viable options.

The Left all claims separating children from their families for their own safety, security and protection is inhumane. CPS and social service agencies across America have been doing exactly that to American citizens for decades and decades. The left called it protection.

I’m all for real solutions. So maybe the US should just annex the whole of Latin America and take over. Sound crazy? What’s crazier, having half their population showing up at our border claiming asylum or that? There is a sanctuary status for everyone in America but Americans. Americans are now second class citizens — at the bottom of the pecking order.

We would be called the evil “US empire” if we invaded Latin America and took over. They invade here and it is some guaranteed right. (which no one can quite explain) And when they do come, we have some moral and legal obligation to support, educate and employ them. So why not go down there and claim it? Might as well; they all want to come here.

Either peace out….or pissed off.

Right Ring | Bullright

Cake Baker Dump

A major SCOTUS decision came out today about the cake baker in Colorado. But let me take this opportunity to translate and paraphrase the dissent opinion, which is from Ruth Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor.

They hold that the discrimination commission has the all powerful right to validate, or particularly invalidate a person’s religious freedom or beliefs, and its limitations.

I think we’ve seen that movie before… and know how it ends.

Talking vs. listening to God: who you going to believe?

This is a post I wanted to write and didn’t want to write. Wanted to because I think it is important, but didn’t want to because I know people roll their eyes or get turned off talking about faith or Christianity. Still here goes.

A few weeks ago Joy Beyhar made a comment on the View attacking Pence for his Christian beliefs. Then she was forced to apologize by Disney. But Pence, in his kind way, accepted it and urged her to make a public apology to the millions of Christians she offended. Finally, she did make a public apology on TV.

Yes, regardless of the apology, it is still worthy of discussion. IOW, that is not the end of it.

What she said was the subject of the matter.

“It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you. That’s called mental illness, if I’m not correct, hearing voices.”

Never mind the grammatical faux pas, she referred to it as mental illness. Great job offending ignorant Christians who just don’t know better. Her apology did not make it go away. She was just voicing a common misconception about Christians.

Apology — “I was raised to respect everyone’s religious faith and I fell short of that,” the comedian said. “I sincerely apologize for what I said.”

The crux of the matter is listening to God. That is the big offense here. Apparently talking to God is fine but listening to God is not. That, in a nutshell, is a common liberal opinion out there. In othe words, it would take a Christian to be offended at that because most other people would not be. No wonder we are where we are in society.

Listening to God, can it be possible that is a chief offense? Is it really the stuff of loony tunes and crazies? Nonsense, but it makes for a good sound bite.

However, it is completely backwards or reversed from Christian tradition. We talk an awful lot to God. Some people pray regularly. Funny that listening would be the problem. We do have an awesome God who not only hears but knows our hearts and intentions. You don’t fool God. Yes, we are not above error. Much of the problem is not listening.

One of the things we are taught, or learn, is the patience and discipline to listen to God. Call it waiting on Him. Remember He has the ability to speak any way He wants, whether by events or natural means or through people. But God’s message will come through if He wants it to. So then it becomes a matter of us being receptive or listening for it.

Discerning

I would actually say that the easier part is for us to talk, the harder part is to listen. If it were only us talking, it is a one way conversation. You talk to your friends, but you don’t do all the talking.(or you might not have the friend for long) And we don’t have all the answers, which is often why we turn to God. We are seeking something from Him.

God desires a personal relationship with his people. How do you have a relationship without doing some listening? In 2 Chronicles 7:14, it tells us “if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

That also means we are heard. It says “seek my face.” Well, seeking is also listening, and following. Through the scriptures, prayer talking to others, we seek. Often we are seeking answers, or solutions. Shouldn’t we be open to answers, even expect them? James 1:22 — “But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.”

Or we could try acting like one of the pundits on TV who talks over the other person blocking out their voice. How can they be listening when they shout down the other person? They ignore other people’s answers. Liberals like that method.

So talking to God is fine, but listening is not.

Just imagine how you would teach your kids then. Tell them “we want you to talk to God, pray. Just don’t ever listen to Him. See, that’s where you get into trouble.” Just like if you told your kids: “if you need help, come and talk to me. Just never listen to me or follow me. So, kids, no listening now….don’t embarrass me.” It is the same message.

This is what we get from society. Joy got a lot of laughs, seemed the crowd was with her. That’s what I expect from the secularists today. Sure they preach their religion, but when it comes to Christians? Well, just laugh at them. Okay, so I forgive her. That is the mentality though and she is not alone. They just have it exactly backwards.

Our bodies are gifts as well as our limbs. It is how we use them that matters. Reasoning is a gift and so is our conscience. It’s another way God talks to us. If we don’t listen to our conscience it would cause a problem. You would never tell someone to stop listening to their conscience. But the world and society might. Maybe peer pressure tells kids to ignore their conscience. Do we tell kids to do that? And the world thinks we’re crazy?

 

Flashback of another famous ‘comedian’: (Christmas day)

Right Ring | Bullright

Impersonators Abound in 2018

The obnoxious left is at it again. In the electoral playground in Pa-18, they are running a so-called “moderate”. But anyone knows there is no such thing as moderate Democrat pols anymore. It is more the universal communist party. They have far more in common with Chairman Mao than Thomas Jefferson — with a hat tip to Marx.

Yet they continue this ruse that they can somehow be agreeable to Republicans and Trump policies alike. Well, what could go wrong? It’s a big lie, we know.

“Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery”…except when it’s a huge insult.

Let’s see, what does the left really stand for? The Democrats are anti-second amendment, anti-life, anti-capitalism, anti-family, anti-borders, anti-freedom, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of religion, anti-business, anti-energy, anti-justice, anti-accountability, anti-law enforcement, anti-God, and anti-Israel. (and apparently anti-sanity too)

If the chameleon Lamb was half the moderate he claims to be, he would have had to abandon that Democrat asylum years ago. But he didn’t and he is not.

Instead it is a total mockery of any values and it is done for the sole purposes of politics. That shows what side he is on. It is the biggest insult to common sense to think he stands for anything but the new Socialist Democrat party. If this is their answer to Trump’s agenda, they lose. The kicker is the left does not like their pols talking that way either.

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Right Ring | Bullright

Ideals meet politics

GK Chesterson wrote:

“They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics.” – from The Ethics of Elfland

I should have posted this quote alone, but I could not do it. It occurs to me this is part of what is wrong today. The opposite of this quote rings too true for culture. I don’t think Chesterson is even taught in schools anymore, someone who contributed so much.

There’s a movement by the Catholic Church to sanctify him. Chesterson honored God in what he did. All the more reason he is marginalized from society.

So if they are not teaching him, you can say par for the times of ours. However, if this all continues, at some point they may not know how to teach it — being too impractical.

Conditioning

You can see it in this shooting. To take the general view that people forego principles and morality to accept culture as just the way it is, then it alters what we do. It lowers the standard. It rationalizes morality away. It becomes a state of these are the circumstances we live with now. We act accordingly and presume to be excused because of it all.

We can/do teach that in schools: these are just the conditions we are dealt. Teach that shootings are now normalcy. Just accept that is the way it is.

Chesterson was making a point to say that you don’t have to take that view, or concede your fundamental beliefs and principles. That is much the reason we got to this state.

Right Ring | Bullright

God’s morality police of the left?

Jerry Brown—Who Favors Legalized Killing of Unborn—Says: ‘I Don’t Think President Trump Has a Fear of the Lord

CNSNews.com
By CNSNews.com Staff | December 9, 2017

California Gov. Jerry Brown, who favors the legalized killing of unborn children, told CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he does not believe President Donald Trump “has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God” based on the fact that Trump removed the United States from the Paris climate change agreement.

The “60 Minutes” episode will air tomorrow. On its website, CBS News reported this about it:

“Brown told Whitaker that President Trump is wrong to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement and misguided for calling it a bad deal for America. ‘That’s a preposterous idea, not even a shred of truth in that statement,” Brown said. “I don’t think President Trump has a fear of the Lord, the fear of the wrath of God, which leads one to more humility… and this is such a reckless disregard for the truth and for the existential consequences that can be unleashed.’” [……./]

More https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/cnsnewscom-staff/jerry-brown-who-favors-legalized-killing-unborn-says-i-dont-think-president

 
Well, since Jerry Brown is now a member of the Inquisition — no, he may be running it — I guess that is supposed to be the final verdict.  At least Hugo Chavez sprinkled his rhetoric with the “smell of sulfur” coming from the UN podium after Bush left it. The latest charge is God opposes Trump. Just imagine that being an official position on Obama?

Recently Alan Dershowitz called out Laurence Tribe to a debate on the Constitutionality of leftists’ obstruction of justice charge. He demurred, so far. He struggles to defend it.

But Tribe did lash out at Dershowitz for “defending” the legitimacy of the “Devil Incarnate” who is president, Donald Trump.  So Tribe has turned theologian, too. 

Yet all because Dershowitz appealed to the Constitution.  Tribe asserts that he cannot debate it now, before Mueller’s investigation is concluded. (hoping he can find something to hang his unconstitutional hat on and stretch the document into play doh)

And just days ago, Nancy Pelosi played the God card. Oh yes she did! Ah, Nancy takes the path to say that God is on the side of Democrats and their amnesty strategy for DACA and illegal aliens. Pelosi must be the chosen prosecutor for the Inquisition.

Following her lead, am I to infer that if the government does shutdown, it must be divine intervention in favor of the Democrats’ lawless positions? Well, it is the message.

Coming Insurrection: BLM to Antifa

What me worry? It is not that I worry much about leftists protests, Marxists have been running this scam for a long time. What disturbs me more is the faux religious tone of some Christian clergy getting involved, (I’ve grown accustomed to the face) not just supporting but promoting it. Then there is the evolving names of the left. When one name gets soiled, just choose another. But it’s the same thing.

So just follow any search for refuse fascism and you’ll find the org, the links and the clergy involved. I will note this time at least they are supposedly only using the church names for “identification purposes.” That means they are not directly saying the church endorses the movement. (though implied) I doubt feds or IRS will be investigating their tax status.

From a leading organizer of the movement:

Tom Carey, Priest-in-Charge, Church of the Epiphany, Los Angeles
“…There is only one way way for us to bring justice and tolerance back to our national life: To hit the streets to demand the removal of this regime on November 4. We are all coming out into the steeets, people of faith, people of conscience, and we are going to stay there until this regime is removed…”

Here’s a snippet of what they say in their long appeal, reading like Luther’s theses, except that they are opposing the Trump administration. All in the name of “Humanity”.

In spite of what many on the religious right are claiming, we know that the politics of division, violence and intimidation that are being employed by the Trump/Pence regime do not represent the heart and soul of what our religious traditions teach. Our traditions insist that we are keepers of the vineyard who have a responsibility to care for this world and its inhabitants. Justice is not peripheral to our identity as religious people; it defines the very core of who we are called by our traditions to be.

Their Justice train is a little late. The proud who’s who in the movement:

National Faith Task Force for Nov 4 (initial): Rev. Frank Wulf, Pastor-in-Charge, Echo Park United Methodist Church; Ernestine Henning, Supervisor (ret.) AME Church; Rev. Tom Carey, Priest-in-Charge, Church of the Epiphany; Isabel Cardenas, Salvadoran-American activist, co-initiator of Refuse Fascism; Rev. Frank Alton, Provost, Cathedral Center of St. Paul; Ted Jennings, Professor of Biblical and Constructive Theology at the Chicago Theological Seminary; Father Bob Bossie, SCJ; Rev. Taigen Dan Leighton Ph.D., Soto Zen Buddhist priest and Dharma teacher; Rabbi Michael Davis; Fr. Richard Estrada, Church of the Epiphany, Cornel West, Fr. Luis Barrios, Holyrood Episcopal Church, Jon Nathen Wurzel, Atonement Lutheran Church, Lyda Eddington, Pastor, La Tijera United Methodist Church, Sara Lee MacDonald, Communications Director, St. Peter’s Santa Maria Episcopal Church, Rabbi Michael Pollack, March on Harrisburg, Patricia Capers, New Paltz, Shawn Anthony Ward, Luis Harris, Jerry Rivers, The Vineyard Church, Rev. Jim VanderWeele, Northlake Unitarian Universalist Church, D.I.V.A.S Ministry Group ~ (affiliations for identification purposes only)

But then it won’t be long, depending on the endurance of the protests that more churches, clergy are added. And they more actively promote the movement to Christian flocks. So my issue is not as much with the predictable left doing what they do; but once again at clergy for following suit like puppy dogs. Spinoff of Antifa complete. The name was smeared. Make it a little more palatable, refuse fascism.

Congrats, clergy, for identifying more with insurrection than resurrection.

 

Allow me to take the liberty to summarize a message for them:

‘We are first-class religious Hypocrites. We lecture against meddling in electing a president; but run one out of office, or impeach one? You bet! We’re all about that.’

Right Ring | Bullright

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

My last post compelled me to expand on the same topic, which has been a preoccupation of mine over years. I know it may not interest a lot of people, but there is a niche it does.

The words Liberation Theology normally conjure up certain images and, to many of us, is closely associated with Obama or his radical preacher in Chicago. Now all that may be true. However, I don’t think too many people realize the scope of influence it has had on Christianity, churches, or the well-meaning Christian faith.

There were plenty of links in the previous article for a primer. Still an in-depth look at it is really necessary. I started seeing connections many years ago and the subject, with its influence, has stuck with me. I often wondered why I am so bothered by it?

Well, that is self-explanatory if people understood exactly what it is. It sort of validates the concerns all by itself.

Start with the Black Liberation theology that most of us heard of, thanks to Barry and a few others. It is often subtly promoted while lumping in MLK Jr. I don’t agree with that notion but he is commonly used to promote the theology.

Black Liberation Theology is more a radical strain of an already radical ideology. See, in as much as it is a theology, it also seems eerily similar to a political ideology.

(Wikipedia):”Black theology, or Black liberation theology, refers to a theological perspective which originated among African American seminarians and scholars, and in some black churches in the United States and later in other parts of the world. It contextualizes Christianity in an attempt to help those of African descent overcome oppression. It especially focuses on the injustices committed against African Americans and black South Africans during American segregation and apartheid, respectively.

Black theology seeks to liberate non-white people from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation—”a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes James Hal Cone, one of the original advocates of the perspective. Black theology mixes Christianity with questions of civil rights, particularly raised by the Black Power movement and the Black Consciousness Movement. Further, Black theology has led the way and contributed to the discussion, and conclusion, that all theology is contextual – even what is known as systematic theology.”

But Liberation Theology itself is not just race specific. According to the Britannica Encyclopedia, it has its roots – at least the current form – back in Latin, South America decades ago in the 60’s. The crossover made Christianity both its promoter and apologist.

That puts it back around the same time as the youth unrest and protest movements in the US. (commonly known as the radical 60’s) It also puts itself around the time as Saul Alinsky developed and pushed his radicalism. Of course, Alinsky’s version would not involve religion or Christianity – or does it? Anyway, it means radicalism is not specific to Christianity; but just became a new vehicle to promote and spread radicalism via making common cause in using the Christian community as an ally.

In Latin America, Catholic clergy developed this movement primarily as an answer for poverty they saw and as a way to relate to those people, the poor.

So Liberation Theology is described, in Britannica [1] as:

“Liberation theologians believed that God speaks particularly through the poor and that the Bible can be understood only when seen from the perspective of the poor.”

Basically, they “affirmed,” at a Catholic Bishops conference in 1968, “the rights of the poor and asserting that industrialized nations enriched themselves at the expense of developing countries.“[1]

Does that sound at all familiar?

Also, the Catholic Church for years is more than aware of the theology. As usual, the RCC has written on the subject.

THE RETREAT OF LIBERATION THEOLOGY

by Edward A. Lynch (EWTN Library)

Few intellectual movements have begun with more immediate, favorable
attention than the theology of liberation, developed by Latin
American scholars in the 1960s and 1970s. Encomia to the “new way of
doing theology” came from North American and European scholars and
from many Latin American bishops. At the Second General Conference of
the Latin American conference of Bishops (CELAM), held in Medellin in
1968, liberation theology seemed to come into its own even before the
English publication of Gustavo Gutierrez’s 1973 .

Twenty-five years later, however, liberation theology has been
reduced to an intellectual curiosity. While still attractive to many
North American and European scholars, it has failed in what the
liberationists always said was their main mission, the complete
renovation of Latin American Catholicism.

Instead, orthodox Catholic leaders, starting with Pope John Paul II,
have reclaimed ideas and positions that the liberationists had
claimed for themselves, such as the “preferential option for the
poor,” and “liberation” itself. In so doing, the opponents of
liberation theology have successfully changed the terms of debate
over religion and politics in Latin America. At the same time,
liberation theology had to face internal philosophical contradictions
and vastly altered political and economic circumstances, both in
Latin America and elsewhere. Having lost the initiative, liberation
theologians are making sweeping reversals in their theology.

The response to liberation theology was sophisticated and
multi-faceted. Nevertheless, it is possible to describe its essential
ingredient rather briefly. John Paul II and the other opponents of
liberation theology offered it a cultural challenge. That is, they
took issue with what liberation theology tried to say about the basic
meaning of human life and what is most important to living that life. …./ More

Now that we know what it is today, we also can see the effects it has had on anything from the church to the culture, to every other segment of society. Basically what civil rights and the anti-establishment protest movement did to society, liberation theology did to the Christian church at large.

So while there have been reformations in Christianity’s history, this liberation theology has also now permeated it – in my view. Some may argue, but I only ask that they look around with a critical eye and then tell me it has not.

To simplify it: a sociopolitical Marxist construct that pits the poor against the wealthy.

This conveniently fits into the Democrats’ Marxist paradigm while tying materialism to the church — in that case to the RCC. So it fits the bill all the way around, at least for the progressive Left who use it as an apologetic for their ideology. (doubling as a recruitment tool) But I don’t want to get into whether Democrats actually stand for the poor or downtrodden. The Left has the rhetoric down, and this provides a religious, achem Christian, validation and authority for it. This also conveniently fits with some Hispanics or Latin American immigrants familiar with it from their homeland.

The orthodoxy of the Roman Catholic Church did take issue with it. Those like Pope John Paul II had opposed it. However, as we find in other areas, mere opposition of something does not equate to abolishing it.

What happened though is this movement theology lined up to merge forces with the secular left, as well as leftist political ideology, and the anti-Christian atheists. It fit for both worlds, while reducing any perceived threat to or from secularists — because it had a mutually shared set of goals and platform. It detours Christians from their central faith, to one based on materialism. If Marxists could find anything in that to oppose, I don’t know what it would be. It fits Christianity to Marxism and its step-child socialism uniformly.

What’s not to like for Atheists, Secularists, or Marxist progressives?

The second beauty of the Liberation Theology is that it inherently mixes religion and politics, almost by its nature. And that has many Leftists thrilled with it. No, you thought they had this issue on the left about combining religion and politics, with something called the Separation of Church and State? Wrong. This was exactly what the doctor ordered.

So Liberationist clergy are also ecstatic at the perfect union. And who is to complain, after all? Not the secular Leftists, not the church or clergy, not the Marxists. Who’s unhappy?

That brings us to the next point. Many Christians, even some evangelicals, have latched onto the ideas. That means it has spread across the spectrum of denominations, from the RCC to Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, to small local Christian organizations. See, that was the idea. I call it an epidemic — with as many negative consequences.

That takes us to the polls.

To the polls, to the polls… the Left wants that Christian vote. And, if you think about it, in many ways it even opposes traditional Christian thought and influence. So it is a stealth counter-influence to traditional, real Christians — namely at the voting booth. Now the paradox is that the Left really cares nothing about Christianity, per se, but Liberationist Christians do care about leftist ideology, making them common cause allies. Christians apparently don’t care that the alliance really opposes Christians.

Footnote – reference: [1] By Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica
[2] EWTN https://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/LIBERATE.TXT
[3] Black Liberation Theology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_theology

Right Ring | Bullright

Saint Elizabeth Warren, I presume!

When Does the Media Love Christianity?

By: BillOReilly.com Staff | September 8, 2017

You probably know the answer to the above question. The media praises Christianity only when the Christian in question is a left-wing politician.

What brings this up is a long and nauseating piece in the Boston Globe which essentially beatified Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

“Elizabeth Warren’s Christian faith is deep and authentic,” gushed reporter Victoria McGrane, “and it informs her work as a senator.” How does McGrane or anyone else know whether anyone’s faith is “authentic?”

We were also assured that Senator Warren is never without her Bible, “a well-worn King James version she has had since the fourth grade.”

Can you imagine the Boston Globe or its former owner, the New York Times, writing that kind of puffery about a Republican? Mike Huckabee, for example, is an ordained Southern Baptist minister, but most of the swells at the Globe surely despise the man.

This drill is all very familiar and predictable: Religion as practiced by Jesse Jackson, Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and their fellow travelers on the left is uplifting and honorable. Religion as practiced by Ted Cruz, Robert Jeffress, and Sarah Palin is worthy of nothing but ridicule. …/

Read more https://www.billoreilly.com/b/When-Does-the-Media-Love-Christianity/-904489698118946721.html

 
Of course O’Reilly is spot on. I would just add that if she is devout, then it is in practicing at Bernie Sanders’ Tabernacle of Revolution. Why would they choose her sect over — or in place of — Bernie’s in 2020? They’ve already seen the fruits of his. Or maybe Bernie can be high priest and Elizabeth can be the high priestess on a ticket?

Media’s promotion of her faux Christian credentials would “require the willing suspension of disbelief” by the congregants. It’s serving the church of politics. That’s what they do.

Remember how media built up Obama’s Christian cred or how they promoted Hillary’s devout, deeply-rooted Christian beliefs? Planned Parenthood didn’t buy it. That’s what they do — hoping to divide Christians in preparation for slaughter at the ballot box.

However, immediately after election media and the candidates go back to sneering and mocking Christians and Christianity. But that is the very thing we were warned about.

Though in both Obama’s and Hillary’s case, their mentors were theologians of Marx. A dead giveaway. Yet the media got away with selling it as ‘pure as the driven wool.’

Obama studied under Rev Wright’s Liberation (Marxist) Theology, etc. Hillary’s youth minister sent her down the path of socialist activism. Warren brandishes a King James version while claiming to be a nasty, nasty woman of the occupy movement. Money changers anyone? All swear to a blood pact on the altar of abortion. Christian leaders?

So why not? These days progressives, or whatever they want to call themselves, operate more like a religious cult. It is no wonder the Left would apply many of their policies as, and with, the piety of a religious sect now.

 

References: Matthew 7:15, Matthew 24:11, Luke 21:8, 2 Thessalonians 2:3

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

Media: Agents of Ulterior Agenda

I thought it would be useful for scientific purposes to look at who it is the MSM thinks they’re talking to? Who are their preferred viewers or readers? Who is their focus?

First of all, it would be someone who is able to be influenced. Zoom in on those like a laser. So that means that people can be influenced. If they didn’t think so, then they would be wasting their time. Maybe not all, though those are the ones they are concerned with.

And evidently, media thinks this segment of people are pretty dumb. At least uninformed to the point media’s new, enlightened information can possibly change what they think or believe about something, like Donald Trump. Too dumb and you are of no use to them politically, which is of course all that matters.(politics)

That also aligns with what Obama believed, when he always lectured us about not understanding or comprehending what he was doing and saying. You know, it was the ignorant people who were just too dumb to know what was good for them. But he, the smart guy he was, always knew what was good for us. We heard it for 8 years.

The idea is if people were only as smart as they are, we all would agree with libs. It’s their no-brainer, self-evident truth. If persons still don’t believe in Liberal’s agenda, then they are either dumb or some ignorant form of sub-human beings. And discarded as such.

There are basically only two choices: smart like them or ignorant if you disagree. Media and Obama read from the same script. If you are the dumb unconvinced type, you should be rolled by masses who believe otherwise, with no compassion for your views. Having any compassion for your views would humanize you — they must avoid that at all cost.

The people media are concerned with are those that can be pushed, shoved or corralled into supporting libs’ views, in some way. So media wants to be talking right to them as much as possible. It isn’t worried about the ones who do agree, only those who don’t. (they are a threat) That is why Obama, Pelosi or now media have to demonize them.

 

This made me contemplate what I would be if I was their ideal target? I would be someone who is not locked into any belief. (unless to their liberal views) I would be someone who just is not very familiar with any “real” facts. (*real as liberals term them)

I would be impressionable and could believe something based on my sensitivities — natural or coerced — to other people. I would be someone who could give in to peer pressure or brow-beating. Or, alternatively, I could be someone who gives in easily if faced with some unified front of opposition – or defeated by coercive force.

I might also be someone who believes in the nobility of man’s motives or desires, as generally good. I would be someone who is basically gullible, or enough so that I accept what they tell me as basically correct and have a tendency to agree with simple profound points projected at me.

I would believe in, or accept, a zero sum ‘one way or another’ ideology that tells me I either agree with liberals or stand condemned. I would believe that liberals probably are correct about most of the major issues, the more I learn and study about them.

I might also accept the fact, or learn it, that critical thinking only needs to be applied toward non-liberals. I would also soon learn that there is only one way to look at things, in the end. Other views are invalid or need to be abolished. I might also accept that liberals bestow freedom on us and that, in the end, they should control it as its most intelligent caretakers. Throw in someone with an anti-American bias as a bonus prerequisite.

Incidentally, when I consider this profile, I think how it overlays with someone Russians or Marxists look for. So their ideal targets of opportunity seem to overlap the same types.

More could no doubt be added. But Obama, liberals, and media target the same profiles and people. They just believe it is all a matter of informing us enough with their material — be it news or propaganda — to convert us into a usable, controllable political commodity.

It’s worth noting, too, that this group of liberal orthodoxy and their mindset are the ones orchestrating this self-declared Resistance movement. What is wrong with that picture?

RightRing | Bullright

Supreme Hubris

The case of the Trinity Lutheran Church wound its way through the Supreme Court this week. A real religious discrimination case, as opposed to a made up one.

Anyone reading here is probably familiar with it, but here is a short summary.

(Syllabus) The Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center is a Missouri pre-school and daycare center. Originally established as a nonprofit organization, the Center later merged with Trinity Lutheran Church and now operates under its auspices on church property. Among thefacilities at the Center is a playground, which has a coarse pea gravel surface beneath much of the play equipment. In 2012, the Center sought to replace a large portion of the pea gravel with a pour-in-place rubber surface by participating in Missouri’s scrap Tire Program. The program, run by the State’s Department of Natural Resources, offers reimbursement grants to qualifying nonprofit organizations that install playground surfaces made from recycled tires.

The Department had a strict and express policy of denying grants to any applicant owned or controlled by a church, sect, or other religious entity. Pursuant to that policy, the Department denied the Center’s application. In a letter rejecting that application, the Department explained that under Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, the Department could not provide financial assistance directly to a church

What happened was a 7-2 decision in favor of the church. Then the thing that gets me is the 2 dissenters. Sotomayor is a stinging dissent, with Ginsburg and her ACLU ties.

Does that mean, in her view, that she’s okay with the government discriminating against a church? Should we ask? She seems to be the one most aligned with Obama’s zealous worldview than even Kagan. His bigotry against Christians knew no boundaries.

Nevertheless, here are some particulars from the decision:

“(b) The Department’s policy expressly discriminates against otherwise eligible recipients by disqualifying them from a public benefit solely because of their religious character. Like the disqualification statute in McDaniel, the Department’s policy puts Trinity Lutheran to a choice: It may participate in an otherwise available benefit program or remain a religious institution. When the State conditions a benefit in this way, McDaniel says plainly that the State has imposed a penalty on the free exercise of religion that must withstand the most exacting scrutiny. 435 U. S., at 626, 628.”


A difference with the government’s precedent arguments.

“[In Locke vs. Davey] Davey was not denied a scholarship because of who he was; he was denied a scholarship because of what he proposed to do. Here there is no question that Trinity Lutheran was denied a grant simply because of what it is—a church.”

“The Court in Locke also stated that Washington’s restriction on the use of its funds was in keeping with the State’s anti-establishment interest in not using taxpayer funds to pay for the training of clergy, an “essentially religious endeavor,” id., at 721.

Here, nothing of the sort can be said about a program to use recycled tires to resurface playgrounds. At any rate, [in Locke] the Court took account of Washington’s anti-establishment interest only after determining that the scholarship program did not “require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.” Id., at 720–721″

There is no dispute that Trinity Lutheran is put to the choice between being a church and receiving a government benefit. Pp. 11–14.

Yet the Department offers nothing more than Missouri’s preference for skating as far as possible from religious establishment concerns.”

But there is no doubt, in my mind, that the left (anti-Christian zealots) will have their own spin why this is a terrible thing — a bad decision which needs to be overturned. Again, why the dissent in this case is what baffles me?

Justice Sotomayor in her dissent opening said:

“The Court today profoundly changes that relationship by holding, for the first time, that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Its decision slights both our precedents and our history, and its reasoning weakens this country’s longstanding commitment to a separation of church and state beneficial to both.”

Then she proceeded to dig into the mission statement of the Luthran church to use as disqualifiers against Trinity, based on their expressed purpose as a church. Done in a way that only Obama and likely Ginsburg would approve of.

Sotomayor went on down her path by finally summarizing:

“The Church uses “preaching, teaching, worship, witness, service, and fellowship according to the Word of God” to carry out its mission “to ‘make disciples.’”

So she went straight to the church’s doctrine to use against them. Why not put the mission purpose of the church under the spotlight in order to discriminate against it? Basically, Sotomayor’s litmus is based on ‘what it is‘ not what it is doing, or proposing to do. Thus, Sotomayor wants to discrimiate against them solely because of their religious character.

See decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-577_khlp.pdf