Never forget 9/11 2001
Never forget Benghazi 9/11 2012
Those who forget history………….
The steel that won’t bend. God bless America.
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  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.“
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.
Right Ring | Bullright
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. …/
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.
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.
Holding fast to conspiracy narratives pushed by Hillary Clinton (and her campaign of trolls) on Russia meddling, misogyny, racism that cheated her out of her destined Ovalating Office. Unfortunately, she is right, that media will follow her lead every time. While she and the entrenched media establishment are baited and trolled by Russia. They would take career Russian propagandists word or version of events over Trump’s almost every time.
It’s really easy if you are in the Kremlin hell-bent on sowing discord in America. If destroying credibility in American institutions is their goal, then the Left hands them a victory flag. So even when Trump goes to Poland to make a classical academic defense of western civilization, especially then, they have a collective panic attack and cannot recover. But intensive care could not treat their disease.
Then came his next trip to France with liberal Macron, their macaroni boy of Paris they fell for head first. This time MSM decided to downplay coverage of the visit ignoring most of the ceremony, except the presser to push Russia questions. Even the centennial of WWI and France’s Bastile Day got marginal coverage. Jake Tapper called it just a photo-op for Trump. Right a 100 year anniversary is just a photo-op , world history just gets in the way. After all, that is the way they see it.
So now, once again, another historical marker pops up that media seems too preoccupied with Russian propaganda to notice — or give due diligence to. It’s like you have this Russian spy novel playing out in the background to obfuscate any real news.
Saudi Arabia has lagged the U.S. in oil production for the last four years, according to federal data compiled by University of Michigan economist Mark Perry.
Perry created a chart Saturday showing just how far behind Saudi oil production has trailed U.S. production. Rising U.S. production combined with OPEC policies drove crude oil prices down to new lows. Monday, a barrel of oil costs $46.26, while the same barrel would have sold for $109.04 in June 2014.
U.S. oil production, on the other hand, is increasing. The U.S. imported about 60 percent of its oil in 2007, but by 2014, the country only imported 27 percent of its oil — the lowest level since 1985. Rising oil production has reduced demand for Saudi oil abroad too, keeping prices low.
Saudi Arabia can likely handle cheap oil better than other Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) nations, but cheap oil is still devastating the country.
Read at Daily Caller
And yet they wonder why we call MSM Fake News? Everything positive — as they define it — about their messiah’s golden throne was heralded from the mountaintops to make sure it echoed to anyone. It was unavoidable. They ran his Saturday addresses to tout all the great, but invisible, good news. It was good because they said so. Job numbers, even when bad, were called good. Or, as the Bible says, “those who call evil good and good evil.” And it worked, or saturated the airwaves to a point no one else could be heard.
Spending, national debt, budget issues. Remember Obamafiles claimed he halved the budget ‘deficit’ to cover the 2o trillion dollar explosion. The fairy dust worked, put some lipstick on that pig and sell it like the sweety-pie lie it is. He depleted the military, and budget, but who cares about that thing? All is good, they said. ‘These are the good times.’ Never mind that you did not see or feel it. You weren’t alone though. Most didn’t, still you had to listen to regurgitated talking points of how great things were going.
No, we weren’t wrong. Our instincts were not misguided. We weren’t misinformed. We were not too stupid to understand. We were not uneducated halfwits. We were just being constantly lied to on such a level, to such a degree, that Americans never were subjected to before. Even low information voters knew something was wrong. Economists, real ones that is, were not impressed. But even they had a hard time getting any information out. It was all being blurred, blotted out, and intentionally drown out by the so-called good news coming directly from, and being dictated by, the White House.
But it was all good in those days and there were no questions to ask, because no questions were necessary. Just report the White House talking points, life was easy for reporters. Obama would even tell press what stories they think should be covered, and what stories they didn’t think deserved time.
Guess what happened?
Remember Benghazi, IRS, Lois Lerner, or Fast and Furious? Leading from behind was actually a defense strategy they could get behind. Meaningless red lines were all the rage. Russian intervention? It really is not intervention when you are inviting them into Syria and altering your national policy to their liking and getting nothing in return. Of course that is not intervention. That is failed US leadership like we never experienced before either. It was complicit failure. Now they are paranoid about intervention? They opened the door, invited them in, coalesced with them. Is it any surprise Russia wasn’t the greatest or most respectful house guests, when Obama shows no respect for our own house?
Then, to top it all off, when Obama left he had them all declare that he had a completely scandal-free administration, not even a little one. Remember that? So it was an insult on reason and intelligence. It was a fraud. Obamacare was created, built and sold on lies. They named it the Affordable Care Act.
The article above, while it is good news to be ignored under Trump, will likely be co-opted for propaganda value by Obamafiles — who are just as active outside the Office as they were in the White House. So they are quite anxiuos to take credit for anything good. It is what they do. Though our growth and oil business in particular was in spite of Obama’s war on energy, not because of it. But that doesn’t stop them from laying claim.
Anyone dishonest enough to prop up Obama’s regime for 8 years is certainly going to use any dirty trick to that end, to credit Obama with a net positive. A guy like Obama that never had to live under or feel the effect of his own policies. Calling evil good was quite popular, getting even easier with practice. It was instant revision everywhere.
So now that we have oil production growth, who do you think can find fault with our achievement? That’s right, the same people who will gladly try to lay credit to it. But the Left’s “green” team will condemn it as a negative. Oil, fossil fuels is bad juju. Which is why we knew Obama was never supportive to the industry. Yet he wants credit? In your dreams, Obama. And if America was not as innovative, like we’ve always been, this could not have happened. Certainly it was nothing Obama had a hand in.
However, we shouldn’t be afaid to admit good news, because some of it took place under Obama’s tyranny. It began and was under way before him. Like Clinton had the benefit of the tech boom. But Obama did about everything he could to step on it.
Under Trump, all good news will be summarily buried, or tortured by Obama revisionists if it refuses stay in the hole. Since the Left controls the media, that is the way it is. And whatever they can tie to Obama’s Legacy of Lies, they will. Memory Lane is not a place I’d want to live, if I were Obama
RightRing | Bullright
At his graduation in 213, years before what would be a life sentence in N Korea, Otto Warmbier delivered this almost prophetic remark in the text of his speech.
“I wish there was a way to know that you were in the “good old days” before you actually left them.” – quoting a TV series “Office” character, Bernard –Otto Warmbier
But there is no doubt we were not in “the good old days” for the last 8 years, We even knew it at the time. It was not nostalgia. There can be no glamorizing or revising it now.
It was not the best of times. Indeed, it was the worst of times. Not just for Otto Warmbier, but for hundreds of millions of people. In retrospect, Otto is a martyr of America now. RIP
Islamic State supporters are celebrating the recent terrorist attack on London, England, distributing propaganda images via their social media channels calling for “no compromise.”
The propaganda image depicts the silhouette of a man with a knife against the backdrop of a burning Tower Bridge (Tower Bridge, located close to London Bridge, is often confused with the latter — ISIS’s propagandists appear to have made the same mistake).
Remember, Hamid Karzai, the former president of Afghanistan? Hamid Karzai Tweets out after the MOAB was dropped.
It didn’t take long for the poppy of corruption in Afghanistan to play the humane card, from the opium capital of the world.
“I vehemently and in the strongest words condemn the dropping of the latest weapon, the non-nuclear bomb, on Afghanistan by US military.
This is not the war on terror but the inhuman and most brutal use of our country as a testing ground for new and dangerous weapons.
It is upon us, Afghans, to stop the USA. “ — Hamid Karzai tweeted
Where do you start with a statement like that?
How about from the beginning? In the strongest words he condemns this. He couldn’t be more against our actions. Thanks for admitting, at least, that it is a non-nuclear bomb. So it could have been worse, Hamid the horrible.
Then he condemns it on humanity grounds. He has some nerve talking about humane actions compared to the 9/11 terrorist attack on innocent civilians. That which caused the long overdue response to Afghanistan, after refusing requests for its cooperation through official channels. That inhumane response, even to 9/11 attacks?
Now that last part requires just a little extra attention. He calls on Afghans to “stop the USA.” I didn’t know the Resistance movement had expanded to Afghanistan now?
Lest Hamid the turncoat forget, may I remind him that mission, goal sentiment is exactly what caused the ‘War on Terror’ road show all those years ago — spawned right from his back yard in the terrorist haven, Afghanistan.
I think we have the moral high ground and victory here. Playing the ‘humane card’ from the abyss in Afghanistan, how about that? Priceless.
Huamne is not your strong suit, Karzai. But neither is “stopping the USA.”
One thousand chapters strong across America with 400 thousand members, ACT has been speaking out on the issues of Islamic Radicalism within our borders and beyond.
So it is only natural they had a curious eye on the inaugural events. Guess what they found at one of the services?
(ACT)On January 21st, the noble occasion of Interfaith National Prayer Service at the Washington National cathedral was poisoned by the presence of a radical Islamic cleric named Mohamed Magid.
The attendance of Magid at this occasion to honor President Trump and Vice President Pence, clarifies with absolute precision, how close the tentacles of radical Islam can stretch towards those with the very task of eradicating them.
Magid serves as the executive director of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS) Center and is the former executive director of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which according to declassified FBI memos, acted as a Muslim Brotherhood front group as early as 1987.
Magid has endorsed sharia governance, and the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. To advance his dream of a caliphate, Magid believes in incremental infiltration of both government, and the media.
A 1991 document from ISNA’s mothership, the Muslim Brotherhood, stated “its work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.”
The Muslim Brotherhood also considered Magid’s ISNA as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”
Given these facts, a man as dangerous and radical as Magid should not be allowed anywhere near the President of the United States.
Magid, and many others like him, are crafty characters who understand that by attending this noteworthy event, they can now claim innocence from radical ties since they were seen attending an interfaith prayer service with the President of the United States.
This is why eradicating the stealth jihad is one of the most critical aspects of the war on terror. While combatting ISIS is paramount, we must open our eyes to the infiltration taking place within our own borders.
Always trying to innoculate themselves against the boilerplate of radical Islam. If they wanted to try so hard not to represent themselves as radicals, then why are they engaged in proliferation of radicalism, as radicals? Of course truth and honesty are also their enemies, so it figures they would try to represent their real cause as harmless.
My friend, Pepp, recently reminded me of a scripture I think also apples here.
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.
I thought ACT explained Islamists’ rationale very well. Just being seen at events is an attempt to normalize the very type of people who mean us harm.
This is all part of the greater problem I have tried, very hard, to write about. That is they are opportunists, in the same form of other radicals in our country. And they seek to extort every opportunity they can find. It is what they do.
First day on the job for Mattis. Anyone keeping score?
Apparently the rules of engagement have changed.
As the Inauguration came and went, sliding into the sunset, the media took to their standard talking points. (now as old as some redwoods in CA) “Dark.”
So they wasted no time applying their favorite term to Trump’s inaugural address, “dark”. I thought it rather uplifting and encouraging myself. Well, what does it matter what most people thought of his speech, while liberals scramble to define it? Even their adjectives are old — as old as darkness itself.
All of a sudden everything is dark. All of a sudden it is a divided nation. What has Obama done for a divided nation? He caused it then ran off the stage, only to crawl back on as the nations Chief Critic. His self-serving lectures only added to the division. Divided yes.
As the song says, “Stop Draggin’ My Heart Around.”
Baby, you keep knocking on my front door
Same old line you used to use before
But the left has it exactly the other way around. Darkness is their cause.
How about that darkness?
John 1:4- (KJ21)4 “In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men. 5 And the Light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”
Is it any wonder we have division in the world?
John 3:1 “9And this is the verdict: The Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil.”
Job 24:13 “Others have been with those who rebel against the light; They do not want to know its ways Nor abide in its paths.”
Darkness does not comprehend, but dark is an epidemic on the left. What has been pretty dark is the last eight years of ignorance and failed leadership. It became a dark reality.
When anyone talks about Obama’s Presidency, we are called dark. Supreme irony.
And what’s been dark is the media. They did their best to paper over a dark reality. Media became a tool to justify that dark reality. And now they portray darkness everywhere.
RightRing | Bullright
This just in:
Soros lost a billion on the election of Donald Trump, it has been revealed. Oops!
According to the WSJ, “George Soros lost nearly $1 billion as a result of the stock-market rally spurred by Donald Trump’s surprise presidential election.”
Left still in panic, jump mode. All flights to Canada have been canceled. (not really)
Wish he would have bet it all. That would solve so many of our problems.
First, the story is the beating and treatment of the white teenager by 4 black Chicago Trump-haters. Everyone probably heard the story by now. Exhibit A for disgusting.
They discuss the crime on CNN and what happens? All hell breaks loose? No. Someone labels it an evil act but no, again, Don Lemon has to take issue with that term. Hate crime? No, they don’t like that term either.
Tied up, tortured and beaten…. just some bad rearing. Really?
In the wake of the horrific torture of a white man with special needs by four black suspects — which was live-streamed on Facebook — a panelist on Don Lemon’s CNN show called the act “evil.”
“You just try to wrap your head around evil,” Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller told Lemon on Wednesday night. “That’s what this is. It’s evil. It’s brutality. It’s man’s inhumanity to man.”
But Lemon took issue with that assessment.
“I don’t think it’s evil. I don’t think it’s evil,” Lemon responded. “I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.”
The host continued:
And I say, “Who’s raising these young people?” I have no idea who’s raising these young people, because no one I know on earth who is 17 years old or 70 years old would ever think of treating another person like that. It is inhumane. And you wonder, at 18 years old, where’s your parent? Where’s your guardian?
Don Lemon takes the award for journalism bias. He’s trying to keep his stellar record going. “Where’s your guardian?” They are 18 yr-olds and older. Where’s yours, Don?
That was not even the whole problem on CNN. He had another guest besides Lewis. A black woman who insisted this should not be considered a hate crime, as if we don’t know and can’t hear for ourselves what they did. She argued with Lewis.
She went on to state that it is different for black people, who suffered a long history of abuse etc in America. She complained it is wrong to overuse that term and charge. Well, maybe there is another award for her. Does being black excuse what they did? Does it disqualify them from being charged with a hate crime? Lewis called it evil.
Then Lemon chimed in with the “I don’t think it is evil” line. The same people who see “structural racism” everywhere, and an inherent evil in it, cannot see or at least define evil even when watching it take place on a video, which was streamed live.
But they just can’t get there to this hate crime and evil thing.
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
Let me check my end of the year list, not quite complete:
I mentioned the hypocrisy of the left.
I mentioned the evil nature of the Left
I mentioned the inability of the Left to relate to real, working people.
I mentioned the arrogance of Obama, Hillary and Democrats.
I mentioned how we are worse off now, practically than ever in history.
The world is more dangerous now than before Obama controlled the White House.
I wrote about reasons for supporting Trump, and some of the problems coming.
I mentioned what Islamists are doing to threaten and bring down America.
I mentioned political correctness, the favorite tool to push the Left’s agenda.
I said a lot about Russia, and where politicians failed to confront serious threats.
I talked about Christian victims and the Islamic agenda.
I mentioned most of the problems with ISIS and the caliphate.
I mentioned the stupidity of Democrats and some Republicans.
I mentioned the failure of the establishment and leaders to take people seriously.
I covered the mockery of Christians and their values everywhere.
I talked about the absurdity of the claim Trump was wrong for Christians.
I listened to all their absurd arguments on….well, everything.
I dignified their bafoonery by just talking about their schemes and motives.
I tried reasoning with the unreasonable Left.
I pointed out ruling class elitists and establishment don’t get it – and don’t care.
I’ve given much more time an energy to it all than they really deserve.
As to conclusions, well, that’s a deep subject. If enlightenment was the age of reason, then we are now in the age of anti-reason. That’s the point: the left no longer wants to explain, or even defend, what they do.
They just claim it is their inherent right to force their political ideology on everyone. And it is a political ideology. The harder it is forced down our throats the better they like it. The people who preach tolerance actually do not want to get along with anyone. Conflict is their means and their motive. Have you ever heard people talk so much about revolution while they were actually in control?
Hope and Change
Change is coming, change happened; but the naysayers are still wallowing in their denial. For eight years they talked about hope and “change.” Now it finally happened and boy are they pissed. We proved they really wanted no change at all, only total control.
Why didn’t they just say that instead of claiming to want change? Change you can believe in was total control, which is the only thing they do believe in. But total control does not require belief… only submission.
After the election, they are still campaigning only to overturn the results of the election. So they appeal to electors to overturn the results of the electoral college. They are never really satisfied, even when they get what they want. Or especially when they get what they want because then they just want more.
Hillary’s campaign and Democrats now complain about the influence Russia had in the election — or how much it hurt her. But then they claim Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million people. What is their point? So maybe they mean Russia hurt her electoral college path. Hmm, how’s that?
What about the Russiaphobia they spread about Trump? Do they care what effect that had? How about when Mike Morell, former CIA director, called Trump an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation? Do they really want to talk about the Russian effect? How about when they claimed Trump could not be trusted with the nuclear codes? But Hillary had a rogue server risking national security but they are talking about threats? Nuclear. The idea was to present Trump as a bigger security threat than Hillary.
What have we learned? As Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun. Any means to their ends — or to clarify it, their means has no ends. Yet it is an incomplete list.
Now Michele Obama is out of hope, once again. No longer is she “proud” of America.
Fleeting pride didn’t take long. It makes me wonder what her hope was really in?
Feelings, “nothing more than feelings”:
[ABC]Obama said Russian President Vladimir Putin “is well aware of my feelings about this, because I spoke to him directly about it.”
Obama declined to say how the U.S. planned to respond, but White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Wednesday that Obama believes in a “proportional response.”
President Obama, the guy who promised Putin more flexibility in his second term, now says he told Putin to “cut it out” on DNC and Hillary’s campaign hacking. He warns the cyber threat is real…like the Russian threat, Syria, ISIS, and a near-term North Korea problem — all second only to that immediate Climate Change threat. Check!
RightRing | Bullright
Below are two informative videos. First one is the abbreviated biography background on Huma Abedin. The bottom one is like a dossier of Hillary’s scandalous record: from cattle futures to her Senate, to her term as Secretary of State. Scandal should be the Queen of Corruption’s middle name. Consider the first only a primer, and a partner in crime.
Any Senate campaign that is kicked off by Peter Paul and Hsu is probably not going in the right direction. From there it only got worse. She was brought in front of the ethics committee on various things. She then took her national bid for president in 2008 in much the same spirit. Then on to scheming her server to avoid FOIA as Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton is running on her record of running from her record.
Think up a scandal and it’s probably in her dossier because that’s just how Hillary rolls.
Even William Safire, in his 1996 “Blizzard of Lies” essay in NY Times, branded Hillary Clinton a “congenital liar”. Now she is running on her record of “fighting for kids” and families as the heart of her focus. Give me a break. As Bill Clinton said, “this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.” Or as Hillary could admit — if she actually had a shred of conscience — that she “requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”
As Safire put it in ’96:
“Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar.
Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.”
Does all that sound familiar? Pack on top of Safire’s list everything she has done since, adding a mountain of new lies to the old. How about pulling 900 FBI files on her enemies for an appetizer? Smell that abusive power. It eventually comes to her real record, even if you could put aside her trail of scandals, which basically leads to a long Legacy of Lies.
H/T to see Political Insider
Daily Mail UK | Caroline Howe — June 17 2016
[and she’s been looking down at people since.]
When will they start demanding apologies from Hillary for all her abuses? Like victimizing a 12 yr old rape victim and accusing her of not being a virgin who liked older men. She got the rapist off that destroyed her reproductive organs and brutally beat her.
Then she went on to her recent corruption of Benghazi, servergate, pay to play, six figure speeches, Clinton Foundation, Wall St ties scandals.
That’s an Advocate for women and children!
Once one crosses paths with the Clintons, in an unflattering way, they don’t forget it.
WND — Jerome Corsi | 05/13/2016
“I would like to share with you and your friends in the MSM why this subject is important,” she continued. “This situation is NO longer about that. It’s not about the details of these multiple assaults and rapes involving numerous women who never knew one another, telling the same [or] similar stories.
“This is NOT about infidelities, indiscretions, adultery, girlfriends or consensual sex,” [Kathleen] Willey emphasized. “This is about Bill Clinton’s multiple sexual assaults and rapes for over 40 years and Hillary Clinton’s threatening, bullying, intimidating and terrorizing all of the women who have suffered at his hands. It’s as simple as that.”
Even the Washington media joined the bully party.
“Newsweek’s Evan Thomas, the author of this piece, said on a Washington talk show that Jones was just `some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks.’
It’s no longer, if it ever was, about the tawdry affairs, details or sex. It is about the abuse, or crime in Bill’s case, of women who crossed paths with the Clintonistas — the first crime family of American politics. There was even a White House war room with their inner circle to deal with what they termed the “bimbo eruptions”. As James Carville said, “Drag a hundred dollars through a trailer park and there’s no telling what you’ll find.”
Oh, did Hillary ever stand up for any of those women? No, she was right there to attack them and call them incredible. In fact, she was all for not believing women then. She attacked them and then played the victim.
Now she says women should always be believed. Then she says believed until they are shown to be liars. But this is a woman who Called Mrs. Smith a liar because it didn’t fit her political ambitions or agenda. Hillary defended the rapist of a 12 year old girl, then laughed about getting him off. That’s an advocate for women.
But about the sex and infidelity? It really never was… or is.
Hillary, the “Champion for Women?” — Still think it is just about Bill’s sex scandals?
Hillary is like the first female ambassador of ISIS. She aided in creating ISIS. Now she claims they are rooting for Trump to win. Why would they do that, when no one did more for their efforts than Obama and Hillary?
The result was that the western part of Iraq once again became fertile ground for an Islamist insurgency. ISIS swept western Iraq because of the failures of Hillary Clinton and her boss, President Barack Obama.
But that is only half the story. ISIS also exists in Syria. How is it that the United States allowed it to survive there? Lee Smith, at Tablet magazine, points out that letting Syria fester was the intentional policy of the Obama administration — in order to cosy up to Iran.
Probably the scariest part is that she falls for propaganda and apparently gave up critical thinking some years ago. Now she says trust her to protect America’s interests.
For someone who will not say ISIS terrorists are Muslim or Islamic, she claims they are praying to Allah over Trump. I bet they are secretly hoping for Hillary — in their Islamic way — who’s been very, very good for them.
Conclusion: Hillary needs to be put out to permanent pasture with her hubby, Bubba and fenced off from public service, ever.
Coming Live from Philly next week the Damn Dems’ Convention.
This could be their theme song, for obvious reasons.
Sympathy for the Devil – Rolling Stones
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
Cause I’m in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I’ll lay your soul to waste, um yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
Live from Philly, it’s Hillary and Debbie’s DNC – Dem Convention.
What is this numbers game over the number of dead Muslims verses the non-Muslims?
I’ll give anyone the prize of the week if they can tell me why it matters so much that terrorists are (1)killing other Muslims and (2)that they are killing more Muslims than us — prsumably non-Muslims? Might as well watch this before it disappears.
This Georgia Professor goes off that terrorists are killing Muslims.
I confess I don’t understand her point of argument. But it is the same one even Obama uses. Since they are killing other Muslims, is that proof that they are not Muslims, Islamic or terrorists? No. Does it mean we are not a target or that they not are coming after us, as Buck Sexton said? No. Then what could it mean?
Note how the moderator, Don Lemon cuts Buck off and then proposes that maybe the terrorists are also Muslim? Of course, the only ones denying terrorists are Muslims is probably Obama and the White House. But what does that all matter?
Of course they are Muslim, Islamic Terrorists and of course they also kill other Muslims. Is anyone really disagreeing with that? I didn’t think so. But this seems to be their chief talking point, “they are killing Muslims too.” Well, duh! And this means what exactly?
They never tell us what it is supposed to mean. We are supposed to conclude that they are not just after us. Does it mean they aren’t targeting us only other Muslims? No. Whew, I feel better now because they are killing other Muslims too, not just us non-Muslims.
Terrorism, by design, has a certain randomization to it. Maybe that was frowned on at one time, by ethical terrorists, but seems to be justified now. (if there is any justification for terrorism in their minds) Come on, people, we are above this simple numbers game stuff. Why do they tell us all the time that we Americans and Westerners are their targets? Don’t you think they can rationalize killing 100 Muslims if 15 or 20 are non-Muslims? Can’t they also kill other Muslims that are in their way to prove a point and send a message to other Muslims? Of course. So this argument is almost as ridiculous as it sounds. But I am not trying to prove that they do not kill other Muslims. It should make the point that they are plenty evil enough to kill anyone. They’re terrorists, it’s what they do.
Her other point was just as bad, explaining their “lashing out” motivation. It sounds a little like John Kerry. So they kill out of weakness, out of desperation. I get it, the weaker they are the more of these attacks they do. Every time liberals try to explain terrorism they confuse the crap out of it and end up making excuses for terrorists. Like what we are doing is “a recruiting tool,” so stop it. Stop our action and the terrorists will stop? No.
This is to imply a terrorist’s mind is totally logical and rational. But Obama has been making these arguments for years and they don’t sound any better than they did then. And we’re told how logical Obama is. In fact, they are as old as the Saudi sand.
RightRing | Bullright