Rights in question by definition

This is about a wide range of events, not just on the Las Vegas shootings.

I pray for all the victims, families, and all the heroes too. My heart goes out to them.

All these many issues and events are connected with a common theme. It’s pretty simple. Principles and philosophy are keys to the common denominator in all.

 

The phrase has repeatedly been proven so many times that “Democrats don’t trust people with their own money.” That always keeps coming up, and we keep saying it. Of course it doesn’t change though, it’s always the same way in the end. They don’t.

But not only don’t progressives, liberals or whatever, not trust us with our money; they don’t trust us with the 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, 5th or the 9th amendments. The same theme throughout is that you cannot be trusted with those “rights” or the freedoms, even those which are not enumerated and retained by the people.

1st: they don’t trust you with your freedom of religion, speech, or assembly. It doesn’t matter that you are secure in those rights. Either the government or others know better and so you are not capable of using your rights to your best interest. That they should have veto powers over those “rights”. Limited by any means.

2nd: You cannot be trusted with the rights to own arms, that someone needs to oversee and regulate or limit your rights. (first they tried to say your rights don’t even apply but Heller decided that. Now they are up to the less right you have, the better for society)

5th: You cannot be trusted with your own freedom of private property. Kelo decision tried to answer that. Your right stops at government’s need and greed. The Supremes freely and liberally reinterpreted what “public use” means — whatever they want it to, including economic value to the community. Secondly, likewise “just compensation” means what they say it means — for what public use they deem fit — for your property.

Hitler once corrected a reporter on how he was not opposed to ownership of private property, just that property owners should consider themselves agents of the state.

9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” They believe in limiting your enumerated rights and so naturally they are suspicious on your ability to handle any of your rights not enumerated, which they can disparage, regulate or deny. Basically, they reserve their right over your rights. I cannot find their superior, sovereign power.

So is there a running theme here? I think so. But now we see that they just don’t trust us, or people in general, in their freedom. Notice they are very suspicous of our motives or use of our rights. And I’m suspicious of progressives’ sincerity about the Bill of Rights.

And of course by denying or restricting those first ten of the Bill of rights, they also infringe on the 14th amendment of due process and equal protections of the laws.

It becomes clear with any serious thought that the left, who spouts platitudes about rights, just does not trust you — or anyone opposed to their interpretation, thinking, or ideology. Thus, your rights must be subservient to their ideology, agenda and political convenience.

Liberals don’t trust you with your money, rights, freedom, or property, or believe in your ability to protect it. That government’s duty is to control our freedom, not secure it.

Right Ring | Bullright

Advertisements

Saint Elizabeth Warren, I presume!

When Does the Media Love Christianity?

By: BillOReilly.com Staff | September 8, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Part 2: Liberation Theology and politics

Triggering Statues

It seems like those triggering statues are everywhere, to the left. They are so offensive they need to be removed from the offended eye, barred from public, or destroyed.(who said art needed to be perfect?)

So I think I have a solution. It’s very simple. People should think of statues like tweets. Offensive ones may be out there but you can either ignore them or just accept them.

People retweet for different reasons. Sometimes maybe they want others to see it. You don’t agree with everything.You can retweet an offensive comment because you think it deserves to be seen by others.

People can’t ban every offensive tweet. Sometimes you want others to see some offending thing or they make their comment on the retweet.

Not every tweet or twitter person is 100% pure. You wouldn’t want people on twitter to only be able to say certain agreeable things. Only certain authors should be able to tweet. But if you don’t like or appreciate it, you don’t put a like on it or don’t retweet it.

Now the opposite is quickly becoming the case. Some people want to do to twitter and tweets what they are doing to statues: remove or ban the offending ones, as if it is actively offending you because it is there. Therefore, it does not deserve to be on the media or internet and must be banned, possibly along with the author.

Is that what they want to do to the internet? That’s what they are doing to public spaces. What type of statues then can we have? What shall be allowed? Who will decide it, who will enforce it?

Outrage move on over.

Colin Kaepernick can take a knee or sit out the national anthem but a coach is fired and told by a judge that he cannot take a knee to pray on the 50 yard line. So he deserved to be fired. Now, Kaepernick is having a hard time getting employed as people demand he be given a spot, no matter how good a player he is. He needs affirmative action to be hired. His protest deserves a spot. A coach taking a knee deserves to be banished from coaching. But the left doesn’t see this as crazy.

You can be radical enough to stand down on the national anthem and get celebrated for it. Yet you should be rejected for taking a knee on the 50. Where is the rule book for conduct? Where’s the tolerance?

But if you are going to ban statues then you must ban Twitter. It’s too triggering for the public. On the other hand, if you can accept Twitter, then think of statues like Tweets.

Right Ring | Bullright

Supreme Hubris

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, here are some particulars from the decision:

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


A difference with the government’s precedent arguments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justice Sotomayor in her dissent opening said:

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

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

Sotomayor went on down her path by finally summarizing:

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

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

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

Feel the Bern: Sanders proposes Christian ban in government

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.

See: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448393/watch-bernie-sanders-unconstitutionally-impose-religious-test-public-office

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.

Time for a Truth Bomb for Pelosi

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]

Health Care is a Basic Human Right

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.

Ref: http://goodnewsmag.org/2017/04/people-will-die-2/
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/3917/
http://umc-gbcs.org/faith-in-action/health-care-is-a-basic-human-right
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/5417-6/

Maddow on the warpath

Check this out for statements from space. Rachael Maddow on her fear about Trump:

“So it’s a weird tension. It’s a dangerous time for the first amendment and the free press in this country. At the same time, we’re oddly influential with the guy who wants to kill us.” – Rachael Maddow roadshow via Mediaite

Notice Maddow’s flippant use of the words “kill us.” The first literal way to take it is so absurd it is hard to conceive what she meant. For the sake of it, just take it that she means effectually killing the first amendment. That’s bad enough. Killing off the news media?

This is a running screed in media and the left that Trump is killing their first amendment, or certainly that is his goal. I don’t know where they come up with that.

Now if anyone had a problem with the entire 1st amendment, it was Obama. Media sycophants weren’t the least concerned over that: speech, religious freedom, assembly, (bad) press etc. He was at war with most of it, and anyone using it against him.

Know who your friends, enemies are

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.

Hundreds of religious groups call on Congress to keep Johnson Amendment

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. No, that is celebrated. Does that not illustrate the blatant hypocrisy of what they are lecturing us about?

Proverbs 27:6
“Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

RightRing | Bullright

Open Borders and Closing Freedom

The new paradigm of the Left is much like the old one. The only thing that changes are the means. They call themselves progressives using many cute slogans like “lean forward”. Their speeches are laden with phrases like “we want to keep moving forward” or “we aren’t going backwards.” But the direction they go is to their same old ideas of the past.

The left is now into its regressive movement. That is to close the door on freedom while opening the borders to anarchy. Or open our borders to hate while cracking down on opposing speech by calling it hate speech. Dems don’t have problems with hate.

Just recently South Carolina Senator Tim Scott read a list of the comments he regularly receives from the left. They are filled with names like Uncle Tom, sellout to your race, traitor. All names and labels are fair to them. By design they are meant to hurt and inflict pain. Force and intimidation are two of their favorite weapons.

But what we don’t hear is anyone asking the Democrats to condemn the remarks. They obviously haven’t done so on their own. But these people are the Democrats’ base, and the very people who put them into office. Yet they cannot denounce their words. and no one actually expects them to.

If a Republican supporter said these they would demand condemnation immediately. Look what they did with any racist or KKK statements. Not so with the left, they are free to offend anyone, even rewarded for it. Elizabeth Warren rakes in big dollars for name calling and attacking. She organizes their hate-fest. And the hateathon’s dollars roll in. But our condemnation of that speech is out of line and must be stopped, however possible.

The modern regressive movement is about stomping down the threat of freedom everywhere, even in the womb when they can. Doing the latter under the guise of freedom of choice, or reproductive rights. Nipping freedom in its nurturing womb is an ultimate goal, ripping out its roots before it grows. Nip that seed of freedom in the bud.

But open borders? Now that is something that needs to be unrestricted. Judges decide if we have the grounds, or authority, to restrict non-citizens’ freedom to invade. Though our freedom is wilting on the vine, if left to liberals. The left has set the default position to ‘unrestricted’ and say we basically cannot do anything about it; even if it is a matter of national security against those who declared war on us. Speak nothing about that.

So, open the borders wide and slam the door shut on freedom.

RightRing | Bullright

Muslim woman, subway ‘victim’ made it all up…surprise

Fake news alert: No assault, no victim, no news…. no phony racist attackers.

NY Daily News

She made it all up — and now she’s under arrest.

The Muslim college student who claimed she was harassed on the subway by three men who shouted “Donald Trump,” called her a terrorist and tried to rip her hijab off her head has admitted to detectives that she concocted the entire story, the Daily News has learned.

“Nothing happened — and there was no victim.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/muslim-woman-reported-trump-supporter-attack-made-story-article-1.2910944?cid=bitly

Where are the people who are worried about fake news. How about fake victims?

So her freedom of speech apparently includes filing false police reports.

Hey, fake news media, I got your “fake news” right here!

Simple messages

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

Word police, DHS, Jeh Johnson and speech p/c

DHS report before Orlando massacre: Political correctness needed to fight Islamic terrorism

Washington Times

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:…

More

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.

Read more

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.

Years in the making, new narrative deletes old

I need to jump into my way-back machine to make some observational connections.

I’ve been following this popular political narrative for years, decades now. What I have seen is stunning hypocritical ignorance on the left to accept reality.

Back before Islamic radicalism was really on the radar to most people, we had these philosophical and religious conversations bustling around, later on the web with the internet. They were fairly simple to follow. There were passions on both sides.

The secularists on the rise were out in force to seize control of public dialogue. Successful in many aspects, the idea was to purge any mention of religious expression. But of course that was a political discussion, I mean what else could it be? It was laced with vitriolic hatred for anything of religious nature. Any morals or values founded on Christian principles were deemed taboo, at least for practical applications. Enter religious freedom and the 1st amendment debate. Of course, those spewing hatred were atheists, humanists and secularists, or anti-religion zealots. Anyone else was just not with the times, or hip to reality, as they portrayed it. That is a powerful marginalization tactic embraced by the Left, to simply dismiss a whole segment of society. An especially large one.

Somewhere along the way, we also had the creation of the moral majority. (founded in ’79, dissolved in late 80’s w/ resurgence in early 2000’s) Remember Jerry Falwell who was the poster child for all things Christian meddling in politics, and a huge target of the secular Leftists who despised him. This was was a reaction to the times not the cause of them. Now I won’t say Christians were always the innocent victims, they’ve had their share of problems. We are reminded all the time, so leave that to critics who regularly make the case. I don’t need to.

Onward to dialogue

These conversations took shape around religious liberty. Christians were frustrated by the onslaught of what were some heavy-handed, viscous anti-religion zealots. Okay, so they said their beef was with organized religion of all stripes. They set out with fervor to descend on any sites or organizations spewing Christian rhetoric or themes. That would become easy with Google ordering their popularity. Any place serving up or discussing Christian perspectives inevitably got a visit from one or more of these villains.

Often their M/O was a sneaky way to gain credibility by, first, appearing to agree with some part of the discussion, but then taking issue with the direction it was going. They usually got more argumentative as it went to eventually full rage at the site, its people, and their “narrow-minded” views — according to them. Typically they would post stuff countering the Christian message, in calculated ways, then accuse the site of not honoring the first amendment if it was removed or they were banned. This was just a game and they would come back under another alias if they were ejected.

It was sort of a daily thing. The more popular the site was the more persistent they got. Their goal was to shut it down, or confuse it so people lost interest, or eventually drive the owners to throw up their hands. It only took a few of them to wreak havoc on a site. These trolls may have been easy to spot but that didn’t matter. Most people are very familiar with that formula, which is the point. It was too common but worth remembering now.

Many Christian authors or site owners made a habit of saying other opinions were welcomed. That was a huge invitation. Trolls would hang any rules around the site’s neck in a typical liberal process-style argument — just like radicals do. Why do I bother with all this background? It is to remember where we’ve been, sort of like Moses reminding Jews of the goal instead of focusing on the hardships.

As things do on the internet, it evolved from there. Many people thought it was too much trouble to have an open, public, Christian forum on the net. One by one, many larger ones disappeared or reinvented themselves.

Then there were blogs sponsored by the Town Hall website. It was a hub for conservatives to hang out, talk, network, and explore news and activism. Many Christians migrated to these blogs as they popped up weekly on their pages along with the current news and regular columnists. That lasted until they decided they didn’t want the hassles anymore or server space became a factor. Off the starry-eyed bloggers went to start their own blogs, experience in tow. But before that happened, the same sort of pattern formed of Liberals and antagonists invading TH pages with regularity. It was as if Liberals had no other place to go or anything else to do except troll Townhall pages and blogs in search of arguments, causing chaos — not to mention calling people names using every personal attack they could come up with.

Onward and upward

Many former participants or bloggers found their homes on new blogs in the blog domains. Conservatives and Christians sort of regrouped in new and different areas. Many focusing on just politics, and some only on Christian topics. Some combined topics with news and current causes. It became a hodgepodge network of activism and information that breathes life into an otherwise hum-drum internet catering to liberal news and savvy entrepreneurs.

There was now a counterweight of conservative opinion out there, widely spread, even before social media like Facebook and twitter took off. You can still find some larger sites that stick to Christian issues or forums. They don’t make quite the same “all are welcomed” claims because, face it, all are not welcome — nor should they be. Some just want to cause chaos. It’s an evolving world in technology and information.

Evolution in motion

Back in early 2000’s things did change with the attack on 9/11. But before that we had the attack on the Cole and earlier WTC bombing in the 90’s. So those conversations and awareness was already out there. Though 911 did change many things, including dialogue on the web. The anti-Christians, naysayer antagonists and Leftist zealots on the internet were flummoxed on strategy.

They still opposed the Christians in the usual manner. But adjustments were made in dialogue regarding the newfound fears of terrorism. Christians were taken more seriously and had some credibility. Christians may have had a point to their concerns after all?

Then came the reminder of the left’s religious obsession almost immediately after 9/11. There was an onslaught of talk and fear that this would cause a huge backlash and resentment against Muslims. Who would be the villains? (not the anti-reliegion zealots) But it didn’t have to be real. Just the possibility of it happening was enough to provoke all kinds of talk, suspicions, theories aimed at Christians. What did we do… did Christians cause the attack? Were we to blame?

The double standards came out front and center. Here was religious-based hatred driving terrorism via Islamists. It would seem the classic example Leftists had hunted for over the years. Finally, they had the connection of bigotry and hatred to religion. What did they do? So they preached tolerance. Their longstanding intolerance for Christianity suddenly morphed into tolerance for Islam — for anything but Christians. They were fascinated by Islam. We were told it was a peaceful religion. It was only a handful of people, obviously off the path, who committed violent jihad. The former Christian critics became self-anointed tolerance experts.

Do you think that would translate to say Christianity? Why should it in their minds? They had already made their case against old, ancient, superstitious beliefs. But a complete pass was granted to Muslims and Islam. Almost immediately, Islamic spokesmen came out telling us that it had nothing whatsoever to do with Muslims or their peaceful religion. And they looked to cite any example of bigotry they could find as Islamophobia.

Suddenly it was us, the victims, who had a disease: Islamophobia was the diagnosis and watchword. The mission was complete. Christians went from being victims, and direct targets of hatred, to the culprits of anti-Islamic hate. It didn’t even take note that those fighting for religious freedom were the Christians. Now they were the chief villains.

RightRing | Bullright ©

TRUMPED UP BAN

So with all the flurry over Trump’s remarks it is easy to get swept away in the ensuing flood of criticisms.

But really, what was so bad about his ban proposal? Forget the Marxist Left, they call everything names and they were licking their lips at this one. But if reason prevails, then there is a lot to consider on his proposal. Religious, Islamic fascists declared war on us.

Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Not ‘Fascist,’ and Is Not Unconstitutional

by John Hayward | 8 Dec 2015
Breitbart

Because it has caused a great deal of controversy (to put it mildly), it seems appropriate to quote the “Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration” in full:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/trumps-muslim-ban-not-fascist-not-unconstitutional/

Great article on it. Have people realized that if we plan on screening out ISIS from our border, then that is a religious test? Why kid ourselves? That’s who is at war with us.

This all made me think that Hitler made a critical error. It was dumb that he didn’t just declare the the Third Reich a religion. Then he would have had our hands tied.

It seems that the people are ahead of the government and lawmakers. We understand what is happening. Obama loves to lecture that we just don’t understand, yet we are way ahead them. Of course they don’t listen to us which, is the second part of the problem.

When Trump makes a sensible statement that people agree with, their knee-jerk response is to blame him and all those who support him. Instead of realizing the people understand the problem, the ruling class elites stick their heads in the sand and tell us what they cannot do. Obama says, “What I will not do is…” That’s a confidence builder.

Let the people go, Obama

I’ve heard people compare Obama and use the term King, pharaoh, tyrant and they are all accurate, but I think it goes deeper than that name. Obama is a modern pharaoh who has been given lots of opportunities yet hardened his heart. The opportunities present themselves, make their cases, and receive the back of his hand.

The final straw with the Pharaoh in the Old Testament was when God hardened his heart. Up until then he had been given the opportunity to release the people but he hardened his heart every time.

This is the way it is with Obama. He has been given many opportunities to remove his stranglehold over the people. We’ve pleaded with him. Every time he balked and even tightened his corrupted reins of power.

There will come a time and place when Obama will have to answer for his use/abuse of power. His usual arguments and blame games will not work their magic in that setting. It may not be on earth but he will have to account for his actions.

Prayer: Oh Great Lord, sovereign God of creation,

We give You thanks for Your wisdom and strength given to us. I pray that your people will be released from this stranglehold Obama has over them and this land . His power has been corrupted and misused, and he usurped powers not authorized to him.

Please, Lord I pray, oh God, that your people would be released from this bondage. Your people pray for deliverance from this abusive power. May their patient sufferance have been pleasing to You. May you have mercy on Obama and the agents who exacted that control on Your people and their resources. Only You, Lord, can break those chains of bondage. I ask that You would protect Your people from even more abuse from those sources.

Our battle is not with flesh and blood but with principalities of darkness in spiritual places, in heavenly realms. Grant us a willing spirit to receive Your deliverance. Lord have mercy on us. In Jesus Holy name, we ask.

Exodus 9:12 “But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.”

John 12:40
“He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn–and I would heal them.”

Romans 9:18
Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

God Bless the Unite States of America

The President, the Pope and Politics

…and the Castro brothers.

“You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. [5] Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?” —
James 4:4-5

Does the Pope understand, as he should, that the global warming-climate change agenda is really a political one? A seductive one at that. It has been exposed.

It’s just like a bait and switch. You may think you are taking a scientific approach, but science has been trumped by political, reason has morphed into political agenda. You can think you take a modern Christian perspective only to have the creation replace the Creator.

Just as the bait and switch above:

“No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money. “–Matt 6:24 (Sermon on the Mount)

The old God vs. Mammon applies to the creation – worshiping crowd. Even though the Pope may think he is taking the righteous high ground, the whole agenda has been corrupted, and evolved into a socialism tenant. Who, or whom, is he really serving?

“We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.” –Rom 8:22

As much as Pope Francis is immersed in politics of the Climatology agenda, he goes to Cuba and meets with Castro but he is barred from meeting with dissidents. Of course.

Even the Leftist media can’t help but question the Cuba visit asking:
Is Pope Francis too soft on communism?

(CNN)But for the most part, the Pope has steered clear of overt political statements — much more so than his predecessors, says veteran Vatican-watcher John Thavis. And some conservatives are accusing Francis of going soft on communism.

Let’s see if he steers clear of political when he comes to the US? Going to the UN could put the lie to that notion. I doubt he will restrain political inferences.

BBC is asking questions too.
https://twitter.com/bbcworldservice/status/645404379474997248/photo/1?ref_src=twsrctfw

Is the Pope a Communist? (Listen to their inquisition – in new tab)

Social sin, unemployment, false god, money, liberation theology — it’s all packed in there. The conclusion to the piece is no he is not a communist, but what he is no one is quite sure.

But if he shares the propensities of Raul Castro, along with other communists and socialists, like Obama and radical leftists, then how far removed is he from communism? Or if he is a willing tool of the same, what difference does it really make? Used he will be.

Seems the Pope has plenty of Marxist, socialist friends. Whether he sought them out in the same way Obama did is a question. One wonders if that same fatal attraction Obama has for Marxist radicals he proudly admits to, could be the same element that welcomed Francis to the Papacy? The flirtation can be fatal.

For Obama’s part, he can intentionally play up the political agenda, especially with Francis, in order to later have the political references roundly criticized. Nothing could make Barry Soetoro-Barack Obama any happier than stirring critique of the RCC, or the Pope. (for his Islam friends) But then Francis comes from the same social community organizing background. It sets a rivalry on a large scale. One wonders if the subject of the Crusades comes up too?

Also see:

“Welcome to our big, messy religious debate, Pope Francis”
By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor
“We have a tradition in this country of avoiding discussion of religion and politics at the dinner table, and Pope” Francis soon see why.

The Papal Smackdown on U.S.

The Pope will arrive in US next week with the usual fanfare that entails a Papal visit. In view of expectations and his prior statements, he will probably stir the pot rather heavily. Then the joint session speech.

With those known factors, as well as his positions, I may write about it because it’s something I follow. However, I want to forewarn anyone that opposition and disagreement is not Pope bashing. I’ve been through that so many times my head would spin counting. Again, criticism is not Pope-bashing just as criticizing Obama is not racism.

Francis started this with his controversial statements. But I don’t expect to see anyone boycott his joint-session speech, or bar Obama from meeting the Pope because we are in political campaign season. (ala Bibi) Just the opposite, Obama is all about that. And since when did someone come here meddling in our policies? That kind of influence will be welcomed by the Democrats, though they are tied to the abortion industry as “law of the land”. But because they appreciate his socialist bent on economic and cultural matters, they encourage him all the more to make that case to the American people. (i.e. Ted Kennedy & Yuri Andropov)

So as a reminder, I am not a Catholic though I have no interest in bashing the Pope. I’ve also expressed my disagreement and disappointment with evangelicals and protestants in many areas. This was brought about by Pope Francis. As far as separating politics from religion, this Pope has erased many political boundaries. I’m not a separationist either and will not play those games, much less use that as fodder against the Pope of Rome.

On the outside chance he does not delve into controversial, political areas — and what haven’t the Dems politicized — it is still a matter that his people and Vatican have taken stands on these things, whether directly by Francis or his many evolving set of advisers. He may decide, as many politicians do, to let staffers and advisers make his case. But the case is his nonetheless, and he laid claim to it.

Activists, anything but gay

So look what happens when concerned parents spoke out about pro-homo curriculum in schools, in Germany. The headline says it all. Older original story; but is nothing new.

Gays Throw Human Feces at Christians, Wipe Anuses With Pages of Bible

 Jodi Swan — Jul 12, 2015 | BuzzPo — Original incident in March 2014

This is one of those stories that will test your ability to hate the sin and not the sinner.

As many as one-thousand Christian parents had gathered in Germany to protest the new pro-homosexual “sexual diversity” curriculum being taught in schools, when a group of angry gays showed up and did the unthinkable.

The gays charged at the Christians, throwing human excrement on them. They then proceeded to wipe their soiled anuses with pages of the Bible, which they also threw at the Christians.

Shockingly, the police sided with the gays, telling the Christians to leave “to avoid escalation.” The planned public speaking was made impossible.

More: http://buzzpo.com/gays-throw-human-feces-at-christians-wipe-anuses-with-pages-of-bible/

Is that what is in store for America, whenever people question this agenda? We’ve only had a taste. Their tactics only get worse, with Islamists and the LGBT community. Previews of what’s to come when they are crossed. Sound familiar? Of course it does.

And see: 800 Whistleblower

Here we are far from paradise

Erik Rush nailed this one to the wall, in Lutheresque style. A little high brow at beginning but great analysis.

Silencing America’s Majority

Erik Rush | July 2, 2015 | Sons of Liberty

Excerpt:

Shakur had no proof whatsoever of anything he said – yet he and Shabazz were allowed to stand there at length and incite Americans to kill other Americans. Conversely, a white individual cannot criticize our president’s tie without being pilloried for racism.

This double standard is quite similar to that of militant homosexuals being allowed to call for the complete disenfranchisement of Christians, the burning of their businesses, and even violent action against them – yet woe be unto the Christian who criticizes homosexuals or their attendant political agenda, no matter how diplomatically it is done.

Read more at http://sonsoflibertymedia.com/2015/07/silencing-americas-majority/

Yes, the double standards could not be more glaring. On one hand we have Christians who must be bullied, on the other side we have gays who are encouraged to bully — and proud of it. Then there is the media playing right along.

Disagree with Obama and you are a racist bigot, woman-hating, homophobic, anti-choice, Obama hater, and card-carrying right-wing conspiracist nut job. If however you support him, you can be any kind of terrorist-loving, hedonistic, ant-Semitic, anti-Christian, fascist, race-pimping bigot you want to be…and preferably loud and proud about it. Pardon all the hyphenations but the leftists have industrialized their use.

Charleston dynamics and race agenda

As a reference, I made a list of inter-related issues after the Charleston shooting.
A little lengthy and in no specific order.

· Freedom of Religion
· Freedom of Speech
· 1st amendment
· Gun control – agenda and otherwise
· 2nd Amendment
· Location location location – Charleston
· Southern hospitality or Southern racism
· Racism issues
· Hate speech
· Hate crimes
· Legislation and hate legislation
· Flags and symbols
· Pride
· History
· Revisionism
· Civil Rights
· Civil war
· North South tensions
· Political Correctness
· States Rights (or 10th amendment issues)
· Crime culture
· Morality and values in community
· Politics – like it or not injected especially presidential campaigns.
· Christianity
· Terrorism
· Presidential pronouncements, actions, responses
· Dep of Justice
· Monuments and cultural heritage
· Media – biases and coverage.
· Protests
· Death penalty
· Constitution
· Bill of rights
· Legal processes
· Christian persecution throughout the world.
· Tenants of Christianity – i.e. forgiveness etc.
· Security of Churches or religious buildings.
· Social Justice – as in the current Leftist dialogue and definition.
· Moral relativism
· Hypocrisy
· Love and understanding
· Evil
· Mental illness, mental heath problems
· Structural racism — as in the lefts’ new buzzword and definition
· White Supremacy
· Black racism or prejudice
· Race-baiting — Al Sharpton, activists
· Academia and advocacy groups, southern poverty law center

I’ll skip commentary, except the shootings were disturbing. Having all this around the killing of 9 people seems an awful lot to have on the plate at one time.

Not to get the intended reaction is a little divine justice. But we have come to a surreal point where not to riot is a surprise, where rioting and civil unrest is the norm.

Look where they’ve taken it, from shootings to a flag and creeping racism. Those who use racism now have more in common with the shooter’s motives than with victims.

RightRing | Bullright