Know Your Enemies

It’s absolutely necessary to know the enemy of US and freedom itself. Ignorance is no alibi. The left doesn’t care. In fact they are in bed with them, pushing the same agenda.

Documentary Details of Muslim Brotherhood Effort to Dominate America

IPT News
by John Rossomando |July 8, 2019

Editor’s Note: Muslim Brotherhood activist Nidal Mohamed Sakr’s presence in the United States was first discovered by Joe Kaufman in a 2018 Front Page Magazine article. Kaufman uncovered Sakr’s work in the Muslim Brotherhood, his relationship with Osama bin Laden and Sakr’s 2017 social media post threatening President Trump. Kaufman created the image showing Sakr in a suit and at what appears to be a rally that is shown in Horowitz’s video.

A new short documentary by filmmaker Ami Horowitz gives an inside glimpse of what Muslim Brotherhood members really think. Horowitz traveled to Beirut, Istanbul, Cairo and California to speak with activists, as well as members on the streets in Egypt.

Horowitz expected Brotherhood members to be cagey, since the organization generally is secretive. But he told the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) they were candid. Muslim Brotherhood members generally do not admit they belong to the group, even in the Middle East.

“What I found when I sat down with them, and I’ve spoken with dozens of them, is that they’re very open about what their plans are and what they want to do,” Horowitz said.

Brotherhood operatives like to say they are part of different organizations from country to country. However, Horowitz found that many of them knew each other and had similar goals despite coming from different countries. The Brotherhood’s ultimate goal is a global Islamic state.

“They were all from disparate parts of the world, and they all knew one another,” Horowitz told the IPT. “They all went to certain meetings that they all kind of attended … I found that when you scratch the surface and get behind the veneer that the connection between them is less murky.”

Horowitz has made videos and movies for the past 12 years. This film was privately financed and is available for viewing at no charge. …/

See IPT https://www.investigativeproject.org/7979/documentary-details-muslim-brotherhood-effort-to

From video:

“A revolution is coming. It’s not going to be green. It’s not going to be peaceful like Arab Spring, I guarantee you that.”

It almost sounds like Bernie Sanders, sans the non-green talk.

According to Mo Bro activists: It’s not terrorism it is heroism.

Watch this close-up mini-documentary. Who knows how long it will be up there?
Just couple that sentiment with three or four congressional radicals.

Mo Bro is the common denominator. Better know your enemies; they know you.

Dangerous Has No Parallel: war by other means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And take out the 2nd Amendment.

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

Right Ring | Bullright
Bernie

Losing Our Posterity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Sort of like we all thought

You don’t say? Exactly what we said, knew and saw. File it under old news, as it was exposed in 2016. But the intent has no expiration date. Remember when…

LEAKED: Obama Team Kept List of Muslims For Top Jobs, Excluded Non-Muslims

Justin Caruso | 10/24/2016 | The Daily Caller

The newest batch of John Podesta’s hacked emails released by Wikileaks shows Obama’s transition team kept lists of Muslim and Asian candidates for jobs in the administration.

According to an email chain from 2008, John Podesta received lists of exclusively Muslims and Asians to be considered for jobs in the Obama administration. The email chain revealed that in this process, Middle Eastern Christians were purposefully excluded, or set aside in a separate list, with an aide writing,

In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian. In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of uncertain religion (esp. Christian).

Also notable, there was concern that some of the Muslims suggested would not survive media scrutiny, with one aide writing, “High-profile Muslim Americans tend to be the subject of a fair amount of blogger criticism, and so the individuals on this list would need to be ESPECIALLY carefully vetted.”

She continues, “I suspect some of the people I list would not survive such a vet — but I do personally know, at least in part, virtually all of the candidates in the 1st two categories (but I know very few of those listed for outside boards/commissions).”

Within the lists themselves, candidates were further broken down, with every candidate labeled by their nationality and sometimes race.

This follows a pattern of the Obama Administration using race and religion to determine hiring, with other leaked emails showing potential political appointees being labeled with an F for female, B for black, H for Hispanic, and M for Muslim.

Another Wikileaks release showed the Obama transition team keeping extensive lists of non-white candidates for administration posts.

https://dailycaller.com/2016/10/24/leaked-obama-team-kept-list-of-muslims-for-top-jobs-excluded-non-muslims/

So any surprise there? Only that they were so coordinated about doing it. Can anyone say litmus test? In other words, Article VI, no religious test. In this case, it was completely religious. Discrimination was the process. The left had no problem with that.

But then the results were obvious to everyone, or it should have been.

It only makes me wonder, will someone someday have the gonads to write the book on what Obama did flagrantly from the beginning to end? I kind of doubt it but like to hope so. It was as bad as we thought and then even worse. Yet it needs to be memorialized.

Any questions? All right then!

Meanwhile Press and Media Whine

I’m going to put up this piece from the news association, not because it deserves to be but because it needs to be called out for what it is. I am mean for picking on the press.

They are calling on all press to use their prestigious space to defend the “free press.”
A few hundred have agreed, like a solidarity thing.

RTDNA calls on members to join campaign defending press freedom

August 13, 2018 | RTDNA [*emphasis mine]

The Radio Television Digital News Association and its Voice of the First Amendment Task Force are calling on our more than 1,200 members and their broadcast and digital news outlets to join the Boston Globe and more than 100 other local newspapers across the country on Aug. 16 in a coordinated editorial response to attacks from the President on the media.

“We urge our members to join the effort on Thursday, Aug. 16 by dedicating airtime, publishing an online editorial or sharing information via social media platforms that speaks to your viewers and listeners about the role we play in preserving the public’s right and need to know, in a government for and by the people,” said Dan Shelley, RTDNA’s executive director.

“The President has ratcheted up his anti-press contempt. Journalists are now the ‘disgusting fake news,’ and according to one presidential tweet, we also ‘cause Wars [sic].’ This rhetoric has contributed to many of the president’s supporters lashing out harshly against members of the White House press corps and other journalists. It must stop before more journalists are hurt or worse,” states Shelley.

Today, RTDNA, its members and the other broadcast and digital journalists it represents stand in solidarity with the dozens of American newspapers that have joined the Boston Globe campaign to publish editorials pushing back against the notion that responsible journalism is “fake news” and that journalists are the “enemy of the American people.”

Please contact RTDNA at pressfreedom@rtdna.org if your station plans to participate. For more information on how to explain the public service your news organization regularly provides, please see this list of resources for rebuilding trust with news consumers and this list of questions to consider as a newsroom.

About the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force
RTDNA formed the Voice of the First Amendment Task Force to defend against threats to the First Amendment and news media access, and to bridge the divide between responsible journalists and those who don’t like, or don’t understand, the news media. People wishing to support RTDNA’s efforts may reach out to the task force by emailing pressfreedom@rtdna.org.

About RTDNA
RTDNA is the world’s largest professional organization devoted exclusively to broadcast and digital journalism. Founded as a grassroots organization in 1946, RTDNA works to protect the rights of electronic journalists throughout the country, promotes ethical standards in the industry, provides members with training and education and honors outstanding work in the profession through the Edward R. Murrow Awards.”

Original source

So it is a campaign defending press freedom. Oh goody, a special day for that.

Instead of what they claim, this is a dedicated day to attack Trump, feel free as if they do not already do so daily. So what is the special occasion about this day? That’s what they have done since Trump won.

But my personal issue with this goes much deeper. First of all, when press refers to the First Amendment, they liberally mean “freedom of press.” However, there are other freedoms in the first amendment. Just that to press, this freedom is the only one they really give a damn about. Secondly, it is offensive that they lay claim to the First Amendment as their own. But that is the only part they want people to care about and keep beating us over the head about.

Yes, I understand the need for a Free Press. It is absurd I have to make that disclaimer.

I will take the opportunity to mention another favorite talking point of theirs — meaning the press in general. The claim is Trump declared war on the first amendment. Again, by first amendment they are referring to press. (misleading to say the least.) Or some even say he declared war on the “free press.” What nonsense. I have never seen another president more media friendly than Trump.

This bothers me why? It is mostly this “war on or against the first amendment” mantra that gets me. As the old line goes: “what we have here is a failure to communicate.” With all that is going on, there is not a war on the press or first amendment. It is a battle within the First Amendment. But it has always been there. There has always been some friction within the 1st Amend. The press is only one of 5 freedoms contained therein: Freedom of religion, speech, press, petition of grievance, and assembly. I see press is only one fifth of that. Technically, you can say press may have some tangential influence in others.

As to the “war” as they call it within the first amendment; it is press declaring war on the people’s freedoms. Press has no ownership of or control over the First Amendment.

Despite how I really feel about this brouhaha over the press, I will give them this honored day…… to make a joke out of themselves, as they have done for over 10 years.

What an idea!

We could have had special “defense of the first amendment days” back in 2009-2010. Remember the Tea Parties? But we did not get “special day” kudos for defending free speech. We got the royal condemnation for it, and viciously attacked. For all of our organizing skill and peaceful efforts, we had the long arm of the IRS attack dogs sicked on us. It was labeled traitorous to the US Constitution in media. Talk about Orwellian.

Did we get a special assist or atta-boy from the media/press for standing up and defending the First Amendment? Just the opposite. We were attacked for “hiding behind the first amendment.” But it was press that was doing the attacking. They declared war on free speech and dissent, from both ends of Pennsylvania Ave. and in press and media.

So what does that tell us, other than the fact that the “press” doesn’t give a damn about the first amendment? It tells us they have chosen sides. And they chose to go to war against the American people, just for standing up for their first amendment rights.

So for this dedicated “defending press day” I offer them a peace sign minus the index finger. Of course they really don’t need me or anyone else to stand up for them, they have the power of the press. And chose to use that power against the American people. What were they “standing up” for back then? Oh, it was for big-government, for the power of the White House, the power in Congress. Remember their stories of outrage that people yelled at Congressmen, especially black members, when the Democrat caucus paraded in front of Tea Parties to fabricate fake news about us. Then press ran that narrative lie into the ground. We were also labeled racists then. Media assisted.

Excuse me for not having any outrage that the press is victimized. Give me a break. Again, press made huge choices long ago and declared war within the first amendment, against the people. You didn’t just stand idly by, you were the enforcers. Even Ben Rhodes admitted the Obama administration had media, press eating out of their hand. Because, at that point, free press sycophants, you were no longer a “free press.”

Is it time for a ‘voice of free speech task force’? — at least I’m being honest.
See what they did there: “Voice of the First Amendment Task Force”?

 

Related Ref:
Boston Globe: “200 newspapers join Globe effort on freedom of the press editorials”

[Globe]- The Globe initiative comes amid the president’s repeated verbal attacks on journalists, calling mainstream press organizations “fake news” and “the enemy of the American people.” Tensions came to a boil in early August when CNN reporter Jim Acosta walked out of a press briefing after White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders refused to refute Trump’s “enemy of the people” comments.

‘‘We are not the enemy of the people,’’ Marjorie Pritchard, deputy managing editor of the Globe’s opinion page, told the AP last week.

 
Right Ring | Bullright

The Dishonest Political Paradigm

When Trump points to media and calls them the most dishonest people, I have to disagree. The most dishonest people are the Democrats. MSM is only one of their sub groups.

You can count on one thing, whatever Democrats tell you an election is about or what they are running on, it is a lie. They can’t help themselves.

They say they are not running on impeachment. If they won, it would be the first thing on the agenda. Right above removing the tax cuts. Obstruction being the second item.

If Dems tell you that they are now about jobs and the economy, no they aren’t. They’ll claim that is their focus. But the Democrats’ agenda is a cultural cocktail of:

Open borders, pro-illegal immigration, saving sanctuary cities, sexology. turning education into their cauldron of sociology perversion, multiplying biological gender categories, tearing money away from too-rich people, building the socialist state, preserving the murder of humanity’s most innocent lives, redefining America as the Blame Capitol of the world, antisemitism, hating Israel, removing God from society, preserving the Swamp;…

Abolishing ICE, Appeasing terrorists, blaming terrorism on America, undermining and gutting our military defense, abolishing the second amendment, obstructing Trump’s agenda and nominations, stopping free speech of their opponents. protecting cop killers and criminals, using teacher unions and radicalized agendas to control schools, preserving the poor, and pushing their economy-busting regulation and global warming agenda.

Much of which opposes a thriving economy. Including their war on energy, and catering to our economic or technological competitors. Then there is their leftist assault on the Supreme Court as the fail safe defender of the progressive cultural evolution.

Right Ring | Bullright

Facebook Faceplant Hearing

Notable points from Facebook, Zuckerberg hearings.

House notes on Energy and Commerce hearing
2012 Election

“In 2012, the Obama for America presidential election campaign worked with the company to allow users to sign into the campaign’s website via Facebook. According to accounts at the time, the Facebook application gave the campaign access to both those that signed into the campaign, as well as the “Friends” of such persons — “the more than 1 million Obama backers who signed up for the app gave the campaign permission to look at their Facebook friend lists.” This gave the Obama for America campaign access to “hidden voters” for which they otherwise lacked contact information.

Carol Davidsen, Director of Integration of Media Analytics for Obama for America, via Twitter, stated that “Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.” This in turn allegedly allowed one political party to download and retain individual user data which was not provided to other political organizations. “

It worked well for Obama. The problem comes when someone else from the conservative side finds a way to use Facebook. Zuckerberg was also asked but completely ignorant about details of past privacy lawsuits. This proved he was just an empty suit. 

Sham, most Republicans were simply not up on the technology or prepared. Pandering was on full display. Zuckerberg also could not address the data collection of non-FB users.

Overall, he kept returning to his canard that Facebook does not sell data. I think that line might haunt them. But marketing people’s personal data to companies at a profit may as well be. Their commodity is your personal information. If I market cars in a lot I can say I am technically not selling them, but I am getting paid for doing it.

Congressmen and Senators were more interested in looking to get broadband access for their districts and constituents, which Zucky was happy to say he would work toward.

On the censoring part, Zuckerberg had no answers. He claimed they would have over 20 thousand content screeners (FB conflates with security) by the year’s end. And he said they were working on creating more AI (artificial intelligence) tools to do censoring.

So the censoring will go on, and will be automated. He also referred to users flagging or reporting offensive content. So is it a mob sourced censorship platform too? To posture, pander, promote FB should not have been the objective for Congress.

Then, Mr. Zuckerberg, are you willing to help us with making the regulations etc.? Oh, he would be more than happy to have his team assist. Sure, sounds like a plan. 🙂

PS: Georgia Republican Rep Buddy Carter said he doesn’t want to legislate morality. Great. But Zuckerberg and his Facebook fascists do — and are hard at work trying.

Right Ring | Bullright

Ideals meet politics

GK Chesterson wrote:

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

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

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

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

Conditioning

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

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

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

Right Ring | Bullright

Left’s dual rules: Cake Bakers eat your hearts out

So, we get it: the cake bakers are disturbing hateful bigots for not making cakes, but cleanse the campus coffee houses of conservatives. No tolerance whatsoever.

Constitution.com

“Members of the Fordham University College Republicans club were recently asked to leave an on-campus coffee shop because they were wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hats.”

The left calls offensive things triggering which deserve banning. But a cake baker must be forced to bake them a beautiful cake against his will.

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

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. 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