2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJ21)
If My people, who are called by My name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJ21)
If My people, who are called by My name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
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
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.
Bernie Sanders doubles down on his Christian hatred during confirmation hearings. Since by the left’s own definition disagreement with other religions is hatred, a phobia, then Bernie Sanders has one gargantuan phobia.
See article for Bernie’s condemnation of a Christian who does not deserve to be in government and should be banned from it on grounds of his belief.
Oh, I feel the Bern. Had he spoke to a Muslim, I can assure you that conversation wouldn’t have happened. However, a total belief in Marxism would be a qualifier for public office.
So on one day that everyone at least can agree to decry what Kathy Griffin did as vile, another has surfaced to defend her. Go figure, who would be as unhinged as her?
You might have guessed, Keith Olbermann. The guy who’s pimping a new book called “Trump is F****ing Crazy.”($27) He’s just the advocate for the CNN-fired Griffin.
He took to Twitter to lambast the biggest name he could find.
So where did he land his venom and vitriol? Franklin Graham.
Graham denounced the art project of Kathy Griffin on Twitter:
“I work with Christians whose family members have been decapitated. @KathyGriffin is sick and disgusting.”
So Olbermann snaps back…
This is all too rich even for the chronic hypocrite, Keith Olbermann:
“And you’re a professional bullshit artist who exploits the stupid and poor. Shut the hell up #LetHeWhoIsWithoutSinCastTheFirstStone “
That’s a new low for him. Griffin gets wide berth and Graham gets attacked. Graham does a lot to help humanity, even in the Ebola outbreak in Africa, but Olberman needs to preach to Franklin’s demons. Then Keith throws a hashtag at Graham, for merely calling out the disgusting, attention-seeking mockery Griffin swims in.
Let me see, think of a bullshit artist who exploits stupid and poor people and who’s name would bubble right to the top? It has to be the Clinton name. Haiti anyone? They aren’t happy with either of the Clintons. Incidentally, the last I looked. the Clinton Foundation was still using Haiti’s last disaster as part of its fund raising scheme.
If anyone could try to make Kathy Griffin’s act look rational, it’s Keith Olbermann.
This is inconvenient, for a lady who claims to be a stalwart Catholic, familiar with Catholic doctrine, who also often finds herself out of step with traditional teachings on life or other cultural issues.
But in this episode, in San Fran Nan’s zeal to attack the Republicans’ alternative plan to Obamacare that passed the house, and her rush to defend Obamacare — Affordable Healthcare Act — she really muddies the water on religion and politics.
Pelosi made her remarks at her press conference shortly after the passing of the latest Obamacare alternative in the House. But it was a repeated lie she had already used against the former Republican bill, which was pulled and did not get passed.
She rattles off a list of organizations opposed to the Republican plan (many of which originally supported Obamacare) She then lists churches or faith-based institutions along with the United Methodist Church.
First let’s start with the previous bill, on 3/09/17, at her press conference, Pelosi said:
So again, on three fronts, of course, the Affordable Care Act and all that it means to families is very important. The United Methodist Church, in their statement, said people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care. AARP, the American Medical Association, the hospital association, nurses and physicians, patients, insurers, and consumer groups all oppose the GOP bill.
Again, last week on 5/4/17 Pelosi says: (at an open press conference)
“Sister Simone Campbell said, ‘this is not the faithful way forward and must be rejected.’ The Catholic Health Association wrote, ‘we strongly encourage the full house to reject this replacement bill.’ And the United Methodist Church said, ‘opposing Trumpcare, this is what they said, people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.’
Lutheran services of America said, ‘Trumpcare will jeopardize the health care and long-term service and support of millions of Americans.’ The Episcopal Church said, ‘Trumpcare falls woefully short of our spiritual calling to care for the least of these, as well as the noble values upon which our great nation was founded.’ End of quote. And all that was said before the Republicans decided to destroy the protections of Americans with pre-existing conditions. — [Pelosi- press conference on 5/4/17]
Below is apparently the UMC statement from the article Pelosi was referring to:
Note the author says she is the General Secretary [excerpt]
The General Secretary’s statement on Congressional Efforts to rollback health care
by Rev. Dr. Susan Henry-Crowe on March 07, 2017
“We must not allow our leaders to take away affordable and accessible health care from the communities who need it to live and live abundantly.
This bill has been promoted as a “fix” to the health care system in the United States but will do nothing to improve access and affordability. Instead, it will harm many in the congregations and communities in which we live and serve. People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.”
That is basically marked as the General Secretary’s personal statement. How could it be conferred as the statement from the national conference board of the UMC? It s one member’s personal position, though it is posted on the GBCS.org website.
It was one member of the UMC church, as influential as she may be. It does not speak for the entire church itself, as Pelosi suggested. No, she insisted on two separate occasions that it was a statement on behalf of the United Methodist Church.
Dr. Henry-Crowe stated in conclusion: (note the pronoun I)
“I will be calling my members of Congress to urge them to vote no on the bill, and I encourage United Methodists in the United States to join me in advocating for a health care system that leaves no person behind.”
She encourages other members to take that action……on behalf of herself, as the Secretary. But she does not speak for the entire church. Again, she has it posted on the GBCS website. Henry-Crowe, not a medical doctor, also offers no proof for the claim that “people will die”.
Another UM news outlet disected Pelosi’s dilemma: [excerpt]
Good News – Walter Fenton- [*GBCS is General Board & Church Society]
“We were confident no such [“people wiill die”] statement existed. The UM Church, thankfully, does not make a habit of pontificating on every bill that comes before Congress. Only the General Conference, which meets every four years, can pronounce authoritatively for the UM Church. What we suspected was that Rep. Pelosi had read something a UM bishop or the General Secretary of GBCS had said about the bill. And sure enough, Henry-Crowe had recently opined, “People will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care.” Pelosi gladly took Henry-Crowe’s personal prognostication that “people will die,” as the UM Church’s official word on the bill. It is not.
Henry-Crowe, who holds two degrees in theological studies, and for 22 years served as the dean of the chapel and religious life at Emory University before her role at GBCS, offered no evidence to support her hyperbolic claim. Her remark is particularly interesting in light of a recent column by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat. To be sure, like Henry-Crowe, Douthat is not a health care expert. But unlike her, he actually references reputable studies that find claims about how many lives this or that insurance plan will save to be overblown. As Douthat notes, since the expansion of Medicaid under the ACA, Americans have not become healthier or experienced lower mortality rates (they’re actually higher in some of the states and counties where Medicaid was expanded).
It is hard to understand why, in a church with rank-and-file members from across the political spectrum, GBCS has felt compelled to march almost uniformly to the left on most issues. And it often seems incapable of even acknowledging people of good faith and good will might find alternative prescriptions to be reasonable, responsible, and compassionate. GBCS has a propensity to close off options and stifle conversation before it gets started. So if you don’t stand with Henry-Crowe and GBCS on the recent bill before Congress, you’re evidently comfortable with a plan that will allow “people [to] die. (read full article here) ”
Listen to two more excerpts in the same article which make the point:
“GBCS [General Board] seems to have no dialogue partners in a church that desperately needs them.”
“This is odd and even unhelpful coming from an organization appointed to serve and represent the whole church, not just its left wing.”
“Progressives often style themselves as community organizers for social justice, but you seldom get the impression that GBCS folks are actually out organizing among the grassroots. Instead, they are more often found provoking laity and pastors with progressive pronouncements issued from their Capitol Hill offices in Washington D.C.”
“In the future, we hope Henry-Crowe can find the good in other proposals and refrain from conversation stoppers like, “people will die.”
So, in the end, Pelosi was duped or lied. Though she should have at least looked at the statement — it is not a UMC dicta. Maybe other Methodists were even hoodwinked by Pelosi’s careless public assertion about a specious commentary, coming from one member who happens to be a Secretary.
Though if Pelosi is going to go out and make a proclamation representing an entire organization, or church, she should have confirmed it first.
It’s also interesting in light of President Trump’s executive order over the Johnson Amendment. For years, there have been threats to churches about taking part in politics, yet, as the author above states, some members freely associate the church with left-wing politics on current issues. That political activism is celebrated, just as this was by Pelosi, as a formal church position on progressive, liberal political issues. That is no problem at all.
Funny how whenever it is abortion or other cultural, traditional issues then people claim it is over the line, off bounds for the church. There are plenty of examples.
When churches or clergy sign a petition to Congress to investigate aid to Israel, no problem with that lobbying. But there is never any dialogue, criticism of left wing positions the UMC adopts…. even taking advocacy positions on sanctuary cities or sanctuary status for UM churches — I’ll call them Sanctuary Sanctuaries. No harm or foul in that.
The Pope hits the road to Egypt, which especially lately has been paved with Christian persecution by those underappreciated peaceful Muslims. According to CNN :
That history will provide the Pope an opportunity to plead, again, for nations to open their borders to migrants fleeing violence in the Middle East, a stance that puts him at odds with populists in the United States and Europe.
The meetings with prominent Muslim leaders, including the Grand Imam of the venerated al-Azhar University, offers a chance for the Pope to continue an oft-overlooked aspect of his papacy: his outreach to Muslims. [more]
But Francis walks like an Egyptian as Pope. So he’ll make sure to get in his digs, mainly to the West, that opening our borders to migrants from the Mid-East will purify our hearts. If only we would open up to 12th century barbarianism, we’d be the better for it.
When do we stop playing by the Muslims’ Rules for Radicals book?
Anyway, Francis is on the road again. Does he learn, like the first Francis, that you cannot appease these people? Let’s see how empathetic he is for victims of Palm Sunday.
One of the campaign issues Trump sounded a bullhorn on, at least to evangelicals, pastors and churches, was getting rid of the Johnson Amendment.
That is the one burdening pastors and pulpits under political restrictions to the first amendment, by using 501 status as a lever against them. Holding them hostage you might say. Also placing restrictions on churches. Well, seemed popular didn’t it?
But over the years, so many have become programmed and indoctrinated to this policy. Like a lot of liberal theology, it becomes normalized. No excuses, plenty of complacency.
That’s where it is comes time to know who are your friends and who are your enemies, And so often the latter are closer than you think.
Harry Farley Journalist 05 April 2017 | Christian Today
Nearly 100 religious groups are urging Congress to keep the ‘Johnson Amendment’ which limits churches’ political activities.
President Donald Trump has vowed to repeal the law which blocks ministers from endorsing political candidates from the pulpit or religious organizations from donating to either party. Many Republicans back him and argue the amendment infringes on religious groups’ free speech.
But 99 different groups have written to oppose the move.
‘The charitable sector, particularly houses of worship, should not become another cog in a political machine or another loophole in campaign finance laws,’ they write.
The strongly worded backlash comes from across the religious spectrum from The Episcopal Church and Baptist groups to Catholic, Jewish, Islamic and Hindu movements.
‘Current law serves as a valuable safeguard for the integrity of our charitable sector and campaign finance system,’ [they] say in a letter to top members of Congress.
Continue reading at Christian Today
Here they come, in the name of ‘protection.’
Or basically all your liberalized arms of churches. We know how to interpret that. Many are the proud who call for boycott, divest, and gov’t sanction actions toward Israel.
Funny, they never seem restrained at all in pushing the progressive political line in churches. That, of course, was never really restricted. We see no applied restrictions on black or leftist churches. They don’t have to worry.
Though even speaking about abortion and protecting life has been deemed political, and too taboo for prime-time pulpits. Except if you want to protect baby killing that’s okay.
So now they reveal who they are. Take note. They will stand and defy the action we want. Just as the sanctuary cities stand in defiance to the law and will of the people. Or should I say much like the activist Sanctuary Churches? Get the idea? Or let them preach Climatology from pulpits. That is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”
RightRing | Bullright
Two terms I heard in the last week jumped out at me: ‘intellectual atheist’ and ‘intellectually honest.’ Both struck me as very odd.
The first was used in a Christian apologetic, the second was referring to Obama as “intellectually honest.” I think you can imagine why I had a problem with the second. Obama will give his farewell address in Chicago while his allies prematurely billed him as being “intellectually honest.” Really? Calling Obama honest is dishonest.
I thought the first was very strange way to say someone is an academic intellectual while also an atheist. A person who is an atheist has made a choice not to believe in God. The reasons for their decision may vary, but they made that choice.
If it was an intellectually based decision, then it sort of questions intellectual acumen itself. We know that God is the source of wisdom and good, so why would it be intellectual to deny the existence of a Creator? Solomon wrote a lot about his own extensive quandary in Ecclesiastes. He finally determined, after much deliberation, he held a reasoned and obvious belief in a Creator. Using intellectual capacity for the reason of disbelief seems dishonest. Could that person believe in evil?
As to Obama being intellectually honest, I find that illogical and laughable. He has not been honest. That Obama, in his elite arrogance which taints everything he does, is intellectually honest is ludicrous. When radical political ideology determines one’s actions, is that honest? If one is as bitter as Obama when not getting his way, how honest is that? I guess he is true to his arrogance and narcissism, first.
He spewed out so many twisted lies about Trump in making a case for Hillary that he can not stand on honesty. He strategically lied to pass his agenda. Gruber admitted they could only get ACA past the people by lying. Their arguments were intellectually dishonest.
Of course, they don’t want to call him intellectually dishonest. But why try to call Obama “intellectually honest;” a man who sought out the most Marxist of professors in school, and used racism as the basis for any opposition to him? (it’s a lifelong pattern)
So the common denominator in both terms is “intellectual.” Is Obama now going to make the case that the reason for all his arrogance and shortfalls is his intellectual ability? (his intellectual ability to lie) When intellectual ability is used to deceive and undermine truth, is that an honest use of intellectuality? A person can still be an academic intellectual, but if it is used in that way it certainly cannot be honest.
I don’t know if anyone else sees a little similarity between those terms? Just a thought.
RightRing | Bullright
5777: Is Donald Trump a Cyrus or Nebuchadnezzar?
Here Are Some Facts… President-elect Donald John Trump Will Be 70 Years, 7 Months, And 7 Days Old On His First Day Of Office. What Are The Chances Of That Happening On The Hebraic Year Of 5777? You Can’t Make This Stuff Up.
So add a 5000 to that and what do you have?
Now on the Jewish calendar, this is year 5777. Just an interesting tidbit.
One from Gene:
© Just Gene 2006
From Tony Dungy’s book “Quiet Strength”:
We might even become famous. But in the end, what will it mean?
What will people remember us for? Are other people’s lives better because of the way we lived? Did we make a difference? Did we use to the fullest the gifts and abilities God gave us? Did we give our best effort, and did we do it for the right reasons?
God’s definition of success is really one of significance –the significant difference our lives can make in the lives of others. This significance doesn’t show up in win-loss records, long resumes, or the trophies on our mantels. It’s found in the hearts and lives of those we’ve come across who are in some way better because of the way we lived.
I saw this quote around but it only made me want to get the book.
An enlightening op-ed in support of Trump. Good read.
History is the struggle of imperfect people to try to do the right thing
By Foster Friess – – Monday, July 18, 2016 | Washington Times
Why are evangelicals voting for Donald Trump?
A reporter asked me if, before concluding to support Donald Trump, I grappled with the same concerns expressed to him by a principled evangelical Christian woman. She worried about the moral example Donald Trump is setting for young people.
My response: Remind your born-again friend, that all through history, God has harnessed imperfect people to fulfill His perfect will. Saul of Tarsus spent most of his life killing people whose beliefs he rejected but then became the No. 1 salesman for the loving things Jesus wanted to see happen in our fallen world. Saul definitely would have won all the incentive trips to Hawaii.
King David sent Bathsheba’s husband, Uriah, off to the front lines in hopes he would be killed so David could play cozy with the guy’s wife. David, an imperfect but powerful king, stated repeatedly that he loved God’s statutes and openly acknowledged his wrong when prophet Nathan confronted him. (Check out Psalm 51). David’s unwavering faith in God, from the time he was a shepherd boy, inspired him to establish Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
Joseph counseled Pharaoh and Daniel advised four nasty kings.
Did they struggle with their role and their support of these leaders? Perhaps. […more]
Lisa Bourne | Life Site News
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado, October 19, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to disassociate herself from anti-Catholic statements made by her campaign chairman and said the remarks were “extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics.”
Asked about the anti-Catholic comments after speaking at The Bishop’s Respect Life Dinner on Monday night for the Diocese of Colorado Springs, Cardinal Dolan suggested that had other faith traditions been the target of the prejudiced remarks, there would have been a swift apology and absolute disavowal of them.
But as far as an apology from Clinton for the remarks demeaning Catholics, “Hasn’t happened yet,” Cardinal Dolan said.
Emails released last week by WikiLeaks showed Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta and Director of Communications Jennifer Palmieri, both Catholics, in conversations with activists from two left-wing organizations. In the emails, Catholics were debased, with their beliefs being called “severely backwards.” Conservative Catholics also were accused of “an amazing bastardization of the faith,” and Rupert Murdoch was mocked for baptizing his children as Catholics in the River Jordan.
The U.S. Church’s bishops were slammed in the emails as well, referred to as “a middle ages dictatorship.”
Palmieri said in one of the emails she thought conservatives that had come to Catholicism did so because “they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion,” and that “their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”
Podesta admitted to helping launch a “progressive” infiltration of the Church in another email, and he took an active role in attempting to incite a liberal Catholic revolt against the U.S. bishops.
“We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this,” Podesta wrote. “But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”
The “Catholic Spring” Podesta referred to had been broached in the email by Center for Progress President Sandy Newman, who had pondered, how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or “who would plant them.”
Newman wrote Podesta:
Hi John. This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking … There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.
The statements “are just extraordinarily patronizing and insulting to Catholics,” Cardinal Dolan told ABC affiliate News Channel 13 on Monday.
“If it had been said about the Jewish community, if it had been said about the Islamic community, within 10 minutes there would have been an apology and a complete distancing from those remarks,” he continued.
“Hasn’t happened yet,” he stated.
The cardinal, who is chair of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, then said he’d like to see the Democratic candidate disassociate herself from the offending comments.
“I’m hoping that she’s going to distance herself from these very insulting remarks by her chief of staff,” Cardinal Dolan said.
He also told the news station that he trusts people to be guided by their moral convictions, and he expects people to be “acquainted with the issues.”
The Clinton campaign has not acknowledged the anti-Catholic emails, though they have been played down by at least one Democratic operative and Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine, also a Catholic.
Catholics, some of who have also called for Podesta’s firing, have roundly criticized the email comments.
Ordinarily, these should be defining comments of controversy. But the media yawns, even at the talk of organizing and supporting a revolution within the RCC. Those remarks should send tidal waves through both the Catholic Church and political circles.
Think it matters to people? It certainly doesn’t seem to matter one bit to Lamestream media. For Camp Hillary, it is just one more thing to deny and ignore. But people should be outraged at this by a presidential campaign.
Another controversial issue arose at the debate, where Trump mentioned the brutal late-term abortion process. Well, media and pundits were abhorred at that language and how Trump talked about it. Oh, one needs to be careful with language but careless with life? These are the times. Hillary’s rebuttal was as bad. But there is no defense for the indefensible…. and that is the problem.
No apology even for their comments endorsing a RCC revolution. Yet they call us out for how we describe partial-birth or late-term abortion that Hillary supports in lockstep with Planned Parenthood.
Hillary’s response to Trump was:
Well, that is not what happens in these cases and using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate.
“Scare rhetoric?” — Or as Leftists often call abortion “reproductive autonomy,” and a “health care decision”. Most of us call it killing babies and the business thereof. But credit Trump with broaching the subject at the debate.
By Marc A. Thiessen — Washington Post
Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.
This is the context in which we must read a recently released trove of emails — which, according to WikiLeaks, come from the accounts of Clinton staff — showing the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry that permeates Clinton World.
In a 2012 email that WikiLeaks says was sent to John Podesta, now chairman of the Clinton campaign, Voices for Progress president Sandy Newman writes that “there needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church” and proposed that the Clinton team “plant the seeds of the revolution” to change Catholic teaching. Podesta replies, “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this . . . Likewise Catholics United.” He adds, “I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.”
So members of the Clinton’s inner circle created front groups to foment a “Catholic Spring” — because, as their dear leader had announced, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” […/]
Yes, folks, the war on Christians and there faith is on but hardly new. Podesta seemed to validate that, they are working within the RCC to change their views.
Of course we knew that. So ending up with Pople Francis, then the press touting his liberal views, is right on schedule. We’re well aware of that. When have the press and media been absolutely giddy about a Pope?
It’s Just what the doctor ordered, if you are in the Posesta or Hillary camp.
Couple that with a past statement of Chuck Schumer during a confirmation hearing about people with “deeply held beliefs” — i.e. religious beliefs. (can you say dog whistle?)
At the hearing on his nomination held by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, [nominee William Pryor] was sharply questioned, notably by New York Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer, about whether his “deeply held beliefs” would not prevent him from impartially upholding the laws. The word “Catholic” was never mentioned, just his “deeply held beliefs.” But the implication in all this questioning was strong and clear that any Catholic who took seriously the teachings of the Catholic Church would necessarily have to be pro-life, against so-called “gay marriage,” and so on; and thus in the opinion of these hostile senators would be unable to uphold the law as they expect to see it upheld, i.e., by affirming such court-imposed jurisprudence as legalized abortion.
And that was despite Pryor giving a defense for his positions based on the law.
Yet it is those recent bold admissions that should light your hair on fire about where the front is in the war on Christians. The boldness that Hillary declares it is just as insulting.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic. /…
What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.
Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well.
While not new, it is the culmination of years of work. But of course the thought of any such war on Christians, and their beliefs, is roundly ridiculed from their secularist silos.
Poo-pooed as ‘crazy talk’ and we’re crazy.
That is nothing but just another baseless denial. … coming to a ‘spring’ near you.
We now see Wiki Leaks has more credibility than our media, press. Yet Democrats want to question the validity or motivation of damning emails.
It’s proven that Wiki Leaks is more believable than Hillary, who “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”
Clinton aide Jennifer Palmieri refused to accept her own email that attacked Catholics as true. They called for a Catholic Spring revolution. Denial. But the next day she jumped to highlight NYT’s story about Trump as damning. Her head pivots like The Exorcist.
So Hillary just wants to discuss her policies — lie 10,001. But which policy does she want to talk about, the one she tells Wall Street bankers and special interests, or the one she tells the public in her campaign speech? Which person of Sybil is she? Legacy of lies.
John Podesta assured the Left that he was already hard at work on a revolution in the Catholic Church. Wait, Bernie Sanders, who was running on “revolution” within the Democrat Party, was smeared and put down. Progressives aren’t revolutionists, they are strict authoritarians. Power is their means which is why they want it so bad.
But progressive agnostics have disdain for Christians, Catholics and the Catholic Church, and its positions on morality and life. As Secretary of State, Hillary and the administration was in bed with Muslim Brotherhood fomenting the coup in Egypt.(Egyptians hold them responsible for much of the damage) So they have a great track record on revolutions.
Libya turned into a failed state. They interfered in elections, even in Israel. They armed terrorists. They should be tried for treason, and now they want to foment a “Catholic Spring” revolution. They are calling for a revolution, well, everywhere except in their Establishment Party control — because that’s who they are.
One of the central points Mike Pence has made is how this movement of people in the country is fed up and wants change. But — to follow the media narrative — if all these fed up people in the country are not a majority, then America has a big problem.
So, again, the Wiki Leaks have more credibility than the media and Hillary Clinton. But we the people are the ones who need a revolution to reform our establishment masters. If the progressives are engaged in revolution against anything, it is against we the people. Their total political control is being challenged and they can’t have that.
RightRing | Bullright
Hungary has drawn criticism for favoring Christian over Muslim refugees from Syria and Iraq.
This week, Hungary, which has during the past year come under pressure for its handling of Europe’s mass migration crisis, has become the first government to open an office specifically to address the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and Europe.
“Today, Christianity has become the most persecuted religion, where out of five people killed [for] religious reasons, four of them are Christians,” Catholic News Agency (CNA) quoted Hungary’s Minister for Human Resources, Zoltan Balog, as saying. “In 81 countries around the world, Christians are persecuted, and 200 million Christians live in areas where they are discriminated against. Millions of Christian lives are threatened by followers of radical religious ideologies.”
Yet at the same time, many of our leaders like Obama and Hillary Clinton, along with countless subordinate officials, refuse to call them Radical Islamic Terrorists.
But they have seen fit to condemn the Crusades or criticize Christians whenever possible. And they do throw around words like Islamaphobia to describe their own political critics.
Faced with confronting ethnic or religious cleansing, they cannot be forced to utter the words radical Islamic terrorists. That could offend Muslims. But they can call out critics of their refugee policy that caters to Muslims as bigots. These leaders and officials worry about families of illegal immigrants or Muslims being ripped apart byt the rule of law, yet cannot condemn the slaughter of Christian families and cleansing in Iraq and Syria.
At least Hungary can call it out and recognize it — for the human rights catastrophe it is.
A report by the Homeland Security Advisory Council released days before the Islamic terror attack in Orlando, Florida, stressed the importance of combating extremism by avoiding terms that might offend Muslims. A HSAC subcommittee first created by DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson in 2015 published its report on June 9. Some instructions found in the report include:…
The Daily Caller reports:
The report urges DHS officials to “Reject religiously-charged terminology and problematic positioning by using plain meaning American English.”
For example, the report says the DHS should be “using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma.’”
The report acknowledges that, “There is a disagreement among scholars, government officials, and activists about the right lexicon to use around the issues of violent extremism.”
Nevertheless, the report states, “Under no circumstance should we be using language that will alienate or be disrespectful of fellow Americans.”
“We must speak with honor and respect about all communities within the United States. We should give dignity to the many histories and diversities within our nation and advocate for a consistent whole of government approach that utilizes agreed terms and words. Tone and word choice matter,” the report states.
It says that they should not use words like Sharia, Jihad, Takfir and refrain from using religiously charged terms. But the President of Islam defense goes to the prayer breakfast and lectures about Crusades and criticizes Christians.
The report advocates using and promoting gender diversity to youth. But avoid those things and terms that may be charged or problematic toward Muslims or Islam. Though any opportunity they get to critiize Christians or speak ill of them is acceptable.
For instance when they promote abortion and same-sex marriage, those are not divisive, religiously charged or problematic terms. My disgust meter registered a new high. Talking derogatorily about and marginalizing Christians is acceptable. In fact, it is encouraged.
I bet that would have some effect on Radical Islamic Terrorism.
Now the Pope compares ISIS and Jesus and then there is the whole breeding agenda.
Francis claims ISIS similar to Jesus sending his disciples to all nations
Kit Daniels – May 19, 2016 — Infowars
“Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam,” he told French newspaper La Croix. “It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam, however, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest.”
The Pope also said he “dreaded” hearing about the “Christian roots of Europe” because, to him, they take on “colonialist overtones” and he called on European nations to “integrate” Muslim migrants into the continent.
“This integration is all the more necessary today since, as a result of a selfish search for well-being, Europe is experiencing the grave problem of a declining birth rate,” he stated. “A demographic emptiness is developing.”
His opinions are stunningly similar to those of top Iman Sheikh Muhammad Ayed, who said Muslims should exploit the migrant crisis to breed with Europeans and “conquer their countries.”
“Europe has become old and decrepit and needs human reinforcement… they are not motivated by compassion for the Levant, its people and its refugees… soon, we will trample them underfoot, Allah willing,” he stated. “Throughout Europe, all the hearts are enthused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead, but they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in our midst.”
“We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries!”
Pope Francis also promoted socialism during the interview.
“A completely free market does not work,” he claimed. “Markets in themselves are good but they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance them.”
“In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy.”
It’s been estimated that in the 20th century alone, socialism and communism resulted in the deaths of at least 130 million people.
There is a real affront to anyone who cares. So it is relativism at its worst. The moral equivalence is also disturbing. But I guess we knew what this Pope was. I can’t imagine John Paul saying this.
Comparing “the great commission” of Christianity to what ISIS is doing is so wrong it is hardly worth being forced to explain it. The barbarianism and the force issue, along with Sharia agenda, is nothing in any way similar to the Christian evangelism or missionaries.
So what is the purpose of what he is doing? Your guess is as good as mine. In a sad way, his words speak — all too well — for themselves. They call this the “Vicar” of Christ?
May 7, 2016| by Donn Marten | Downtrend.com
Loose cannon media personality and hard core Ted Cruz surrogate Glenn Beck is unraveling in the aftermath of Tuesday’s Indiana thumping. The mercurial Beck who last week called for a day of fasting so that God would help Cruz, is taking Donald Trump’s capture of the Republican party flag very hard. Beck’s visible mental decline accelerated when he told his audience that God needs to punish America for rejecting tricky Ted in favor of Trump, a man who while popular with the voters – democracy anyone? – doesn’t meet the standards of the country’s most visible Cruz-bot.
Breitbart News is reporting “Glenn Beck: America Is a ‘Petulant Child’ God Must Punish for Supporting Trump Over Cruz”:
Now I would be the first in a line to say we very well have some comeuppance due for our defiant ways in America. Remember abortion and go from there. However, something about Beck blaring it from the rooftops makes me question the messenger, over the message. Who bestowed the crown on this modern day prophet… at least he appears to think he is? It slightly reminds me of the slave girl in Acts running after the disciples.
16One day as we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl with a spirit of clairvoyance, who earned a large income for her masters by fortune-telling. 17This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are proclaiming to you the way of salvation.”
18She continued this for many days. Eventually Paul grew so aggravated that he turned and said to the spirit, “In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her!” And the spirit left her at that very moment.
I’m wondering about Beck’s intentions. Anyway, just curious what’s really driving it?