The Most Important Question In The World

The most important question in the world right now is more of a personal question to everyone.  We have Marxism running amuck with no apparent end in sight.

So the real important question then is what you will do about it? And everyone will have to make that decision, at some point. It will be thrust on you. Will you wait until forced to answer or will you try to do something before it gets to that? Which is it?

But answer it we must. To have no answer is the same as condoning it. They interpret that as complicit agreement – or denial, which is the same thing. I could have figured out other ways to say it but the direct approach is best so words cannot be twisted or reinterpreted. We have a problem. What we do about it is what determines our posterity and freedom.

It is that bad already.

Some nay think it surely hasn’t gotten to that point yet or doubtfully will. But I have news for them. What more do you need to see? Do you need to feel the full-blown effects or are you realizing the truth about what we see daily rolling out in front of us? They have telegraphed their plans to us.

I know, we have already been accused of being deniers of science and lots of other names, conspiricists too. However, we watch them declare war on science. Yes, they call it science but they have substituted pseudo-psychology and sophistry for science. None of it is settled as they claim. They make it up as they go. A list should not be that necessary.

What do we know?

The Democrats have no credibility at all.

Everything they do is lie.

They are at war with science and the environment.

They believe narrative replaces facts and proof.

They have vilified and demonized over half the country.

They are determined to control what we think as well as what we say.

They are not loyal to what we know as America.

They are hell-bent on forcing socialism on us first. (that’s only the start)

They want total control of government and institutions of communication.

They will monitor what they don’t have control over.

They want divisions everywhere, even including a race war.

They have assembled an agenda of hate.

They will weaponize everything necessary to achieve their ends:
from information to technology, to means of production and all our resources.

They have no allegiance to our rights, as we know them.

They don’t accept our justice system as originally laid out.

They don’t accept limitations on government, only limitations on the people.

They push a “moral” narrative using any immoral means.

They practice the dark arts of deception in all they do.

They are purging the military and targeting their political enemies.

They will unleash anarchy and crime on us as a means to their ends.

They will seek to destroy anything in the path to their goals.

Government must be subservient to, not the arbiter of, their schemes.

Any of that sound exaggerated? It shouldn’t. It is all in place now rolling out across the country. Elections are not sacred to the sovereign will of the voters. The will of the people is whatever they claim it is. Their narrative replaces truth.

So it comes back to that all-important question, what will you do? The answer is still within the confines of the Constitution. But they have already strategized that battlefield.

What happens when people do not accept their methods and madness? We know one thing they still don’t like and can’t stand: any and all opposition.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

Nightmares In Déjà vu

There is something to be said about nightmares. Sometimes the worst ones come back. And those are the ones you vividly remember, too. Sometimes you wish you could forget them but you cannot. You wonder where they came from or what spawned them?

So the Obama-Biden years were like a nightmare. It was one of the worst that went on way too long. A dark period many had said was inevitably bound to lead back to common sense virtues. Eventually people would reject it all as leaders would mount an opposition. A good thing in the end. It didn’t work that way.

Now I feel like those nightmares are being injected back into my consciousness. They are back with only slight changes. The characters, some original and others replaced, in that same central theme. This time more determined with more fear than even before. This time with more concentration. They’ve broken through reality and taken up permanent residency in my consciousness.

For instance, one media pundit was a little sad saying Joe Biden probably will not have a honeymoon as president. Ah that is a pity. But the guy was in office for 47 years. He had a half-century-long honeymoon. And he enriched himself quite well along the way. The last thing he deserves is a honeymoon. But us?

Instead, we the people do not get a honeymoon. We do not get a break from anything. We are thrust right back into the nightmares of the Obama years. This time they want to torture everyone into submission. Think that is a bit exaggerated?

In only two days, Biden and company have already declared war on (our) culture, energy, rule of law, security, the economy, values, climate, the Constitution, rights. courts, any opposition, the election system, business, family, history, education or choice, our way of life, America’s sovereignty, border security, and the country itself. They declared war on the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth, tenth, and fourteenth amendments. More to follow.

And all that is just the beginning with China and it’s total dominance breathing down America’s near future. Submission to Demcrats’ twisted and failed ideology is only a stepping-stone to the Chinese CCP threat looming.

But even all that is not enough. Biden and Democrats demand a non-stop gloat-fest from media for everything they are doing. So they are getting it.

And the last four years?

Just forget all that; abolish it from your memory. Make the current conditions so bad one is forced to forget the Trump years. Forget the possibilities, the hope, the hard and slow change we made from their 8-year abyss. But our nightmares are back with vengeance.

Back to the future.

It has its groups and cancel culture as enforcers. Step out of line now and you will be permanently penalized. Do you want that? Of course not. It has what even Obama never had: the full, unified force of proxy enforcers to carry out their will.

We the people are apparently the only ones who have not bought into all the crazy notions, none of which Joe talked about during the campaign. Now they come out of the woodwork.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2021

Politics Of A Pandemic

Everyone now knows how bad an epidemic is. As if we needed a lesson on that. Indeed, it is a powerful thing. But how powerful?

Yes, a pandemic is powerful, not only how it can kill people.

But we have learned that a pandemic was powerful enough to determine who should be President of the United States and our way of life. Who knew a pandemic could do that?

Well, it even determined how we would run elections. It determined who were the winners and losers in the economy. It determined how we should educate our kids or work.

It is a very omnipresent thing, this Chinese virus from hell.

Why stop there? It should also determine world economic affairs. It should determine our global warming agenda. It can create a Great Reset. It can determine our economic system, our energy source. It should also determine what governments can do to citizens under the guise of an emergency.

“There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.” — [from Great Reset forum site]

It is no joke. They can do all this, or anything they want, under the auspices of a “pandemic.” That means they have found a way to politicize even a pandemic. And then they easily find ways to weaponize it against every faucet of our society.

Now no one likes a pandemic. No one hopes for one. But few could have expected the ways in which it could be used against the people as a weapon. If you had serious issues about the expanse of government power before, then this tool put your fears on another level.

For instance, we also learned this pandemic could determine rules and authorize freedoms of speech, religion or assembly. And it could be weaponized to limit those rights, too.

So if you did not see a pandemic as a national security issue as well, you were in for a surprise. It was not a matter of determining rights or banning them, it was essentially a manner of control.

This China virus gave ruling elites carte blanche to do what they will to people. Connect it to global economic policies and you have a cocktail from hell.

A forum in June with world leaders inspired them all to use the pandemic to push as much globalism, climate change policy as they could. Think of the pandemic as an opportunity to install their agenda. You might call it the new green deal-maker.

“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, in an article published on WEF’s website. “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.” – The Hill

If that were not bad enough, then any cure or vaccine easily presents another good opportunity to control people. Or, as Zeke Emanuel sees it, we need to determine who does or doesn’t get the vaccine. Of course age limits need to determine that. And a magical 75-year life span would be a good cutoff for the use of valuable resources like medicine.

Everyone see where all this is going? Turns out a pandemic can be a very useful thing, even a tool. The virus as a huge political opportunity Leftist who politicized and weaponized the entire apparatus extort it so easily that I bet many kids will not realize the way in which the pandemic was used like a tool to control or influence their lives.

But now the Left has done something even more amazing than grant all this authority to it, it has personified a pandemic into a rogue dictator that gets to control your life. It is no longer a thing. The Democrats, however, can hide their deeds behind it which keeps them unaccountable for the actions. Who knew a pandemic was that powerful?

Think about that Great Reset button next time Democrats say they are following science.

 

Exhibit B: Justin Trueau at UN conference September 29, 2020

“This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a Reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and climate change.” — J. Trudeau, reported by Climate Depot

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Where Oh Where?

Everyone has heard of the Tunnels To Towers organization, the group that helps fallen and wounded first responders or vets with their housing or mortgage expense.

A great organization doing great work.

Well, in their ads are quotes from some of the soldiers they are helping. One line always grabs at me every time I hear it: “where do you go when home isn’t home anymore?”

Those powerful words hit me like a ton of bricks and I have no answer to the question. That is a wider question, too. Where do you go when home isn’t home anymore?

I know the context there but that is a profound thought and question worth consideration.

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

The Trial On American Culture

Some people might find this fascinating while others might think it is old news. Though I promise it is interesting how it all comes together in the present, in a unique way that might make more sense than what is happening daily in front of our faces .

It’s no secret I’ve been in religious battles from way back. I’m not writing a book here so I will be brief on details. I’m not lecturing anyone either. Those issues and battles may turn some people off. I hear that. But there is sort of the point: it does turn people off.

Allow me to explain about others like me who were engaged in those religious liberty issues by working all sides of the Constitution and our God-given rights with passion.

What is most interesting here is the opposition to our views — I mean the left or hard Left. They had a venom that defies description. All things were on the table. They used everything they could muster to try to knock down any Christian arguments or concepts.

They claimed to be big on freedom like that phrase “freedom from religion”. Within their perspective contained all the rights and freedoms they could find to oppose you. In fact they claimed to be real freedom zealots who just did not want anyone shoving Christianity, or its views, down their throats. Never take Leftists at their word.

So they were supposedly advocates for virtually any freedom, from thought to reason, to first and even acknowledging some second amendment rights. They were not against your freedom, but it had to be hospitable to their freedom and use of it. I won’t bore you.

The wider message was the more freedom the better. However, when it came to Christianity – since it is the only religion they were worried about — they were out to smear it any way possible. If they had to make things up, distort, lie, rip out of context; it didn’t matter what it took. They were out to destroy it as far as the public view anyway. There could be nothing left standing untouched, or unscathed. Scorched earth.

Now you should start to see where I am going with this. So any credible source or hero of Christianity was tarred and feathered. No credibility was to be left to them, whether it was a founder,a great Christian philosopher or writer. The Christian view was to be decimated in such a way no one would have any confidence, or very little. It was really meant to shake our faith. They didn’t want us to believe in it. Thus, question everything.

Sure they used lots of straw men. They fear-mongered about theocracy and projected that we were pushing it on everyone else. Of course it was the exact opposite; they were strategically pushing their hard-line theology on everyone else. It’s sneaky and deceitful.

They wanted nothing left but their view. Tear it all down. I say this because it was a perfect forerunner to what leftists are doing now. Remember: first they came for the Jews, but I didn’t care…. Then they came for the Christians, but I didn’t care. And a lot of people didn’t care about those arguments at the time. Who is going to care?

Liberals, as I called them, said they were all about enlightenment or exercising all liberties freely, but take your faith back into the prayer closet. It should be kept from the public square. Certainly people are familiar with those perspectives.

What I am saying is it was the exact same methodology used then as is applied to everything today. Oh, one would have thought they were the biggest zealots for liberty then. Some real Ayn Rand and Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine fans. Right!

Flash forward, now leftists are smearing everything and everyone in history. America just has bad roots. It is stained with blood, etc. Well, you can hear it all everywhere.

Everything is rotten in America. Thou shall have no pride in it. A pox on traditions, too.

But that was the same thing they did to Christians, especially strong ones. Leftists wanted to knock it down at least until no longer functionally influential. And preferably until you were beaten enough to stop fighting. So roll over and let them define, redefine everything in culture and America.

Now we see that was only a rehearsal for what they are doing on a larger scale today, It is the entire country they take issue with. There is no doubt about it. And they don’t want anything good to be left unscathed by their wrath for the country or its history.

In doing so, everything great and good about America is to be defamed or destroyed. No heroes or good history. Everything was bad since its inception. In fact, it was founded on lies and evil. Now you see the similarities, almost verbatim as if planned. But if you heard their rhetoric then, or 20 years ago, it feels like déjà vu mixed with voodoo now.

Destroy Christianity and its moral underpinnings, first. But if you cannot destroy it, then at least destroy people’s faith in it. Leave them no comfort.

Next, do the same thing to the entire fabric of the country. Create distortions, divisions and disagreements. Make everything seem questionable. Throw basic reason under the bus. Then destroy people’s confidence in it all and our foundation. After all, nothing can be salvaged or remain above the watermark. Only their useful bureaucracy.

Does it start to make sense, with all the statues being torn down? Every founder or notable person has tar on them. Every one. Bring out only the bad side of everything in America. This works on people how? Well, it tears down what you thought you held in high regard. Turns out that nothing can be held in esteem. All of it was a lie, or so their mantra goes.

Coincidence, I don’t think so. Now everything is so politicized, meaning nothing is left un-politicized., Well, because all is subservient to their radical ideology. And it is an anti-American, anti-Christian ideology. (commie is more like it)

Now they even get reinforcement aid from some left-wing Christians who are fully on board with this social justice war-gaming, which is only an extension of this ideology. (Liberation theology) Driven more by what it doesn’t like than what it likes because it respects almost nothing except power – political power to propel its evolution.

That is the shortest summary I’m able to give and still get the point across of the sinister nature to it. But I think knowing that makes a much clearer picture about what is taking place. Rather than just being blindsided as to what is going on or why.

The next time Democrats or the Left lectures us about “this is not who we are,” this past is who they still are. So remember we know exactly who they are – or what they are not.

[originally titled trial run on American culture but I’ll stick to trial on American culture]

Right Ring | Bullright | © 2020

Christian Controversy on COVID-19

Christians are at the center of Coronavirus controversy for holding services defying gathering orders and social distancing policies.

In Arkansas, many cases were connected back to the same church service. Now the pastor issues a  strong warning to others to take this virus seriously.

In Louisiana, a pastor of Life Tabernacle church outside Baton Rouge has continued to have large gatherings even busing in people from other areas. He’s had multiple weekly services with nearly a thousand attending.

In Florida, a pastor has been arrested for holding services despite being told by authorities to stop, He held two services this past Sunday.

“I know that they’re trying to beat me up, you know, having the church operational, but we are not a non-essential service,” he told the congregation.

“Not only the right of free speech but the right to peaceful assembly and to practice what we believe,” he added. “Suddenly we are demonized because we believe God heals, that the Lord sets people free, and they make us out to be some sort of kooks.” (UPI)

While in NY, a Bishop’s wife has died of COVID-19 and 3 area pastors have tested positive for the virus. Two of them are hospitalized. Some congregations were reluctant to close doors. Clergy have issued strict cancellation orders.

I’ve read internet newsletters of pastors taking a stand of resistance against cancelling their services. Some of them are based on political and religious liberty stands.

Last week I posted the Ron Paul column on the the liberty aspects of the shutdown and bans, teasing the hoax theory. I see a libertarian strain to much of it — although some liberal-leaning churches were also reluctant to follow cancelling directives.

Here’s the thing: the traditional libertarian view was always for personal freedom as long as you are not hurting others. This freedom stand seems to fly in the face of that.

I listened to a libertarian-framed sermon on the internet arguing the resistance theme of following any orders. The pastor seemed to get cheers for taking a stand of defiance.

So  my personal view is we should comply with the directives. The state or federal government is not asking churches to do anything they are not asking of others on numbers of gatherings.(Weddings etc)

Maybe I am missing some salient point why these churches want to risk the health of others in the community? It does not only affect their members but countless others. Why endanger and put all those people at risk?

Right Ring | Bullright

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.