War on Christians is real… coming to your neighborhood

Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty

By Marc A. Thiessen — Washington Post

Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

This is the context in which we must read a recently released trove of emails — which, according to WikiLeaks, come from the accounts of Clinton staff — showing the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry that permeates Clinton World.

In a 2012 email that WikiLeaks says was sent to John Podesta, now chairman of the Clinton campaign, Voices for Progress president Sandy Newman writes that “there needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church” and proposed that the Clinton team “plant the seeds of the revolution” to change Catholic teaching. Podesta replies, “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this . . . Likewise Catholics United.” He adds, “I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult.”

So members of the Clinton’s inner circle created front groups to foment a “Catholic Spring” — because, as their dear leader had announced, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” […/]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clinton-is-a-threat-to-religious-liberty/2016/10/13/878cdc36-9150-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html/

Yes, folks, the war on Christians and there faith is on but hardly new. Podesta seemed to validate that, they are working within the RCC to change their views.

Of course we knew that. So ending up with Pople Francis, then the press touting his liberal views, is right on schedule. We’re well aware of that. When have the press and media been absolutely giddy about a Pope?

It’s Just what the doctor ordered, if you are in the Posesta or Hillary camp.

Couple that with a past statement of Chuck Schumer during a confirmation hearing about people with “deeply held beliefs” — i.e. religious beliefs. (can you say dog whistle?)

Catholic League — in 2003

At the hearing on his nomination held by the Senate Judiciary Committee in June, [nominee William Pryor] was sharply questioned, notably by New York Democratic Senator Charles E. Schumer, about whether his “deeply held beliefs” would not prevent him from impartially upholding the laws. The word “Catholic” was never mentioned, just his “deeply held beliefs.” But the implication in all this questioning was strong and clear that any Catholic who took seriously the teachings of the Catholic Church would necessarily have to be pro-life, against so-called “gay marriage,” and so on; and thus in the opinion of these hostile senators would be unable to uphold the law as they expect to see it upheld, i.e., by affirming such court-imposed jurisprudence as legalized abortion.

And that was despite Pryor giving a defense for his positions based on the law.

Yet it is those recent bold admissions that should light your hair on fire about where the front is in the war on Christians. The boldness that Hillary declares it is just as insulting.

Townhall.com reports

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic. /…

What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.

Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well.

While not new, it is the culmination of years of work. But of course the thought of any such war on Christians, and their beliefs, is roundly ridiculed from their secularist silos.

Poo-pooed as ‘crazy talk’ and we’re crazy.

That is nothing but just another baseless denial. … coming to a ‘spring’ near you.

A Christian example

A different kind of story. A homeless man on a trek to get a food truck to serve the hungry.

The Daily Signal

A crowdfunding campaign is raising money to help a homeless man pay for a food truck for the hungry, after tens of thousands learned of his plight in a viral photo taken at a Chick-fil-A restaurant.

The fundraising effort “exists to help him fulfill his dream,” Joey Mustain said on Facebook. “Let’s not just help him get on his feet; let’s help him stay on his feet.”

http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/01/homeless-man-in-viral-chick-fil-a-photo-has-a-dream-strangers-may-help-him-achieve-it/

But this is the type of thing Christians do, help not hurt a person in need.

Iron Lady had Faith

Whatever you say, Margaret Thatcher had her faith and it was rooted. I didn’t know this much about it.

God and Mrs. Thatcher: The Battle for Britain’s Soul

National Review

“Economics is the method; the object is to change the soul.” So said Margaret Thatcher. The Iron Lady always believed that democratic capitalism involved the transformation of values as much as it did the improvement of Britain’s ailing GDP. Yet few people are aware that Thatcher was a woman of profound faith. She had been a lay Methodist preacher while a student at Oxford University. Later, she would transfer this missionary energy from the pulpit to the political podium. The solid Christian base for Margaret Thatcher’s politics goes back to her strict Methodist upbringing and, more specifically, to her father — greengrocer, councilor, and Wesleyan lay-preacher, Alf Roberts. As a child, Margaret Roberts would sit in the pews of Finkin Street Methodist Church in Grantham, listening to her father hammer home sermons on the individualized nature of faith, God-given free will, moral and fiscal restraint, and the Protestant work ethic. If one were sourcing the origins of Thatcher’s free-market ideology, one should not look to the pages of Friedrich Hayek’s Road to Serfdom or Milton Friedman’s monetarist theory, but in the sermons of her father.

As one of her chief aides Alfred Sherman correctly noted, Margaret Thatcher “was a woman of beliefs, not ideas.” In this, Sherman above all recognized that Christian values and convictions were central to Mrs. Thatcher’s DNA.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426379/margaret-thatcher-christian-methodism

Well, that’s just an extra reason for the Left to despise her, as if they need any more reason than politics. I ran into a liberal Christian woman not long after Thatcher’s funeral. We were having small talk on current events and I just mentioned Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. Just the mention her name almost caused her jaw to get dislodged. I watched her boil up just like a tea pot. “Oooh, I couldn’t stand her” she said. So much for not speaking ill of the dead. All I did was mention her name. The facial expressions said it all. “What about her,” she asked? I said “just the treatment she got in passing with a boycott and protests, kind of sad.” That look was still on her face as if she deserved it. I dropped it but it told me all I needed to know. I wondered what was so evil about her? Where was the respect for her as a woman achiever? That didn’t count for anything.

The Papal Smackdown on U.S.

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

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

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

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

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

Charleston dynamics and race agenda

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

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

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

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

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

RightRing | Bullright

“The way” is not ‘a way’

A very interesting subject often comes up within Christianity but is sometimes raised in a subtle, even sneaky manner. This could be a divisive message for some people, though I suggest that problem is with them not me. That subject is exclusivity, or the exclusiveness of the Christian faith. No matter how many times arguments against it are injected, it is not a new issue. In fact, it has been with us from the beginning.

The first thing to remember, for most people who were either drawn to or matured in their faith, is that exclusivity is an important part of the Christianity message. It wasn’t called the “way” or the road for nothing. But exclusivity has consequences and significance. It makes some people cringe. One reason that matters is it comes from Christians. If it were only from secularists and atheists it would be just another criticism of Christianity.

The whole problem comes in when talking about other religions, whether it’s Hinduism, Buddhism, or Islam etc. But in a nutshell, to take exclusivity out of the equation would mean that it doesn’t matter which religion(or faith) you subscribe to, if basically the same. In application, those of this philosophy say they feel that way – uncomfortable. The effect is to make all beliefs coequal ways. Jesus did not teach that. How long then before people turn that thinking into a consensus of convenience? Then anyone opposing that view, like me, would be the marginalized outliers. That’s how it works in practice.

I apologize for having a habit of repeating myself. But it is a critical point.

II Corinthians 11:4
“For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.”

The real problem is some insist this non-exclusivity is the way it really is, or should be. Some people are just not comfortable with the idea of Christianity as the only, true way. They want to believe there are other ways. They often cite ‘my Father’s house has many mansions’ or ‘judge not lest you be judged’ to make their case. [Jn 14:2 & Mat 7:1]This creates a problem for Christians and Christianity. It is a politically correct view. One does not want to offend others by believing the Christian path, as espoused by Jesus, is the only way. It is inconvenient and makes them uncomfortable.

However, since the beginning of the church and after Christ’s death and resurrection, this exclusive message has been the case. Not accepting Christian exclusivity goes against the grain, fundamentals and the teachings. It’s also a concept inherent in many faiths, in their message. So why are Christians the only ones intimidated and uncomfortable with that tenet of their faith? It doesn’t seem to bother other faiths.

The exclusivity of Christianity is something we must come to terms with though, that is if we believe our own faith. Partly the reason for the issue is because much has been made of it over the years, largely by secularists extorting it for their own gain. The logic goes something like this: ‘sure, everyone thinks that theirs is the only true way and that is the problem. Everyone thinks he/she is right and, thus, believes everyone else is wrong. That is divisive.’ They ask you to alter your belief based on the idea you may offend someone. While you are at it, they insinuate, suspend your belief in who Jesus is too. It’s just the friendlier thing to do. Of course, the problem would then be what Jesus came and died for. He is the fulfillment of prophecy.

Why we are supposedly the only ones who need to accommodate all the others is a question mark for me? Now if you take that exclusive part out of the faith, what do you have? It wouldn’t matter what you believe in whether it is Buddhism or the Hale Bopp comet, if all roads lead to the same place. Now I am not referring here to inter-denominational battles over doctrinal differences. That is a little different. Sure disagreements exist but part of that has to do with the necessary exclusivity. Again, the exclusivity is inherent in the message and our faith. But it is not the problem with it; it is the purpose of it.

Now how we treat people outside of that is another matter. We would like them to find Jesus, certainly not by force or duress. We love them and treat them nice. Then we go out of our way to be non-offensive by bending over backwards until we’re basically saying there is no difference between one religion or the other. That’s the message we are sending. Secularists pounded that drum for years. Whether consciously or unconsciously, that’s the effect of what we are doing.

If we did not believe in exclusivity we wouldn’t be Christians, because that is the message we accept in Christ and are baptized into. No, it is not politically correct.

Luke 12:51
“Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.”

Matthew 10:34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword”

I Corinthians 1:23
“but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,”

Matthew 13:57
And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” [58]And He did not do many miracles there because of their unbelief.

It works to the enemies’ favor because then we have, in effect, disarmed ourselves if we no longer believe Christianity is the only true way. (John 24:6) Jesus said to [Thomas], “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me”. So many people make themselves the judge and jury that everyone is right, to avoid thinking others are wrong. It just sounds better and nicer, doesn’t it? Believing others are wrong just doesn’t feel comfortable. And who wants to tell others that the faith they believe or have been raised in is not the correct way? So let’s just remove that.

It’s not only coming from random pews, but from some pulpits and clergy as well. I’m not referring to the non-Christians because they will say what they will anyway. So this puts the problem within the walls of the church, not just outside it. If you are Christian, you should accept the exclusivity of the faith as a reality and come to terms with it.

If believing in exclusivity of Christ was a problem, the disciples were heavily involved in it. And they even died for that purpose. They weren’t suspending their judgement about other religions by preaching in the synagogues. That would have been politically incorrect to do. Jesus didn’t ask Peter if he would die for all the world’s religions. And Christ did not say he himself was irrelevant. But that would be the extension of what people are doing by reducing everything down to a politically correct stew.

Well, all that political correctness…. that was never my cross to bear.

Acts 4:11
“He is the stone which was rejected by you, The Builders, but which became the chief corner stone. [12]”And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

1 Corinthians 3:11
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

___________________________________________________________

“It’s Not My Cross to Bear” — by Allman Brothers Band 1969

Yeah
I have not come, yeah, to testify
About our bad, bad misfortune
And I ain’t here a wonderin’ why
But I’ll live on and I’ll be strong
‘Cause it just ain’t my cross to bear

RightRing | Bullright

Latest ISIS outrage

The most repulsive comparison I ever heard was the latest ISIS to Christians one. The talking point is there are extremists in both Islam and Christianity.

If ever there were polar opposites it would be ISIS and Christians. In fact, comparing Muslims and Christians is hardly possible. You can look around the world and see what Christians have done.

They helped build homes and communities, purify drinking water, teach farming and agriculture. The provide aid, food, and clothing in every disaster. They build schools and care for the sick. What do you see Muslims doing, besides blowing things up and killing people?

We can see what Christians consistently did in this country. Muslims were attacking this country since the very beginning. They want to compare that?

Michael Eric Dyson compared ISIS to Christians on MSNBC. (see video) So “we don’t have enough counter narratives when it comes to Islam,” says Peterson. Yea, that’s what we need more counter narratives. Except what narratives he is referring to.

That is probably the other underlining problem with their critique, they juxtapose gays (and civil rights) etc with the Christian persecutions going on right out in the open over in the Middle East. Can they not even address and discuss that atrocity, dare we say genocide? No, they must turn it around to make it about political correctness of gays.

Sure women’s rights is a problem too, but they must put it in context of abortion rights and gays. Meanwhile women are being stoned, beaten or killed for the most inexcusable reasons but they have to frame it in reproductive rights vernacular — as if that were the main problem. Give women abortion rights and they’ll be happy.

When Obama went to Africa and tried to sell them on same-sex marriage, they weren’t interested. Obama making the official State Dep position to promote gay rights around the globe probably is not a great sales pitch for America. Yet he told them in his Cairo address that we’ve been arrogant and dismissive toward their concerns in the past. Could trying to force gay rights on them make them like us any better?

But when it comes to Christian persecution he can’t even utter a word about it. He cannot bring it up with leaders or stand up for them. But he can stand up for a same sex couple trying to get married. Genocidal cleansing of Christians, women and children included, and he cannot make a public stand on it. Really now, can you compare IS or Islamic radicals to anything? It’s pure evil.

RightRing | Bullright

Ebola and ISIS: a chronic comparison

What does Ebola have in common with ISIS?

The simple answer is Obama. But that is where the commonality ends. Both represent threats and catastrophic circumstances.

The talk about Ebola is the call and challenge to scale up the treatment of Ebola. In fact, from the Center for Disease control, they say it is not just a problem for African areas but a problem for the whole world. It demands a world-wide response. The World Health Organization is telling everyone it demands our response. See WHO video here.

CDC: “I wish every world leader could see what I have seen. Stopping this outbreak is more than any one nation can do,” Dr. Frieden says. “The sooner the world comes together to help West Africans the safer we all will be.”

“The window of opportunity to stop Ebola from spreading widely throughout Africa and becoming a global threat for years to come is closing, but it is not yet closed,” Dr. Frieden continued. “If the world takes the immediate steps– which are direct requests from the front lines of the outbreak and the Presidents of each country – we can still turn this around.”

Now even Obama is well out front recording a message to Africa about the severe threat of Ebola. “Stopping this disease won’t be easy but we know how to do it,” Obama said.
Washington Post reported:

The decision to involve the military in providing equipment and other assistance for international health workers in Africa comes after mounting calls from some unlikely groups — most prominently the international medical organization Doctors Without Borders — demonstrating to the White House the urgency of the issue. “And then it could be a serious danger to the United States,” Obama said.

“We’re going to have to get U.S. military assets just to set up, for example, isolation units and equipment there,” he said, “to provide security for public health workers surging from around the world.”

From Anthony Fauci, dir. of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIHealth: “We’re left with a situation where if, in fact, this thing smolders on and on, we know mutations will accumulate,” he said. “And that has its own set of problems. We’ve really got to get this thing shut off.”

However, why is it he cannot talk about ISIS or the spreading Islamic State the same way? They can ban or restrict travel in areas affected by Ebola, but not so much on those traveling to and from the Islamic State with the potential to spread this poisonous ideology. Don’t rush to rash decisions on traveling to and from Syria.

Of course, comparing one severe threat to another draws criticism, but why should it? They are similar in nature and affects. Both are a disease.

When you hear these officials run to the microphone announcing Ebola is a serious world problem demanding an immediate reaction, it is chilling. What about ISIS? A response to Ebola cannot come fast enough, on a scale large enough to suit the need. They say the Ebola outbreak is vastly underestimated, an “International public health emergency” and an “urgent” matter of international concern. It is “critical” that it receive labels, they say, so that we provide resources.

Can they even say genocide?

What about ISIS, is there not an equal responsibility there? On ISIS and their ‘black-flag plague’ consuming the Middle East, Obama said:

“People like this [ISIS] ultimately fail,” … “They fail, because the future is won by those who build and not destroy.”

Try that with Ebola.

That a way to rally them to the cause, Obama. Imagine he said the exact thing about Ebola, paraphrasing: “These diseases ultimately fail, sooner or later.” There would be outrage about any passively dismissive statement to real immediate results of a disease spiraling out of control, which knows no borders or boundaries. Yet here we are watching a 1400 yr-old campaign being revived, kick started, and growing rapidly.

All the officials compete demanding action against the Ebola outbreak, epidemic. Maybe Ebola is a diversion from another plague spreading globally? (a genocide) More hypocrisy? One demands immediate condemnation, resources and all our efforts. The other is just a “regional problem”. Try that with Ebola, they’d laugh you right out of the UN.

But there is anther big contrast. While the headchopper plague meanders through the Mid East under Islamic ideology, Christianity is working to feed the poor, purify drinking water, and treat the sick. The biggest enemies of Islamists are, you guessed it, Christians. Christians are trying to help a sick world, Islamists have a passion for slaughter and an agenda against Christians. They are executing people from the tip of Africa to Iran. Christians are trying to save peoples lives, even from Ebola.

In Gaza, Muslim terrorists indiscriminately fire missiles into Israel hoping to kill and injure as many as possible, saying ‘God willing’. It’s an industry. Israel defends its modest homeland and they cry “human rights abuses” by Israel, calling it heavy-handed. Ever tell a headchopper that? Ever tell Hamas that? Has humanity ever witnessed such twisted rationalizations under a guise of humanitarianism?. Yet ISIS cutting out giant swaths of land across borders makes no difference. Then they all lecture America that we must show restraint in the face of evil. Obama tells Israel to show restraint. Indeed, at home Obama complains it takes time, criticizing people for being too far ahead of where they are at.

Now could you apply that to the Ebola outbreak? I think not. Speed, responsibility, and resources are the watchwords for Ebola. Though I get a sick feeling the black-flag death cult could come right in behind Ebola killing thousands as brutally as they can. Or killing people the world is trying to save, from a threat it is trying to eradicate. Still we have this epidemic of compassion for a disease and what it is doing in countries most of us will never see. It causes people to be working non-stop on a vaccine to stop or prevent the carnage — plans being put in place, policies implemented.Time is of the essence to prevent the spread of death. On ISIS not so much. I hear advisers say take your time to come up with a plan.

The real problem of Obama on ISIS is also the extreme irony. What Obama has done thus far is barely equivalent to treating the symptoms rather than the disease. They want to treat the Ebola disease by a goal to eradicate it. Obama’s stated goal on ISIS is to shrink it to a “manageable problem”. The goal against Ebola is to eliminate the threat and disease – presumably kill it and prevent its return. It’s ironic that Christians and missionaries work toward eliminating the spread of Ebola. When it comes to ISIS, Obama sat on his hands observing its spread and now said he wants to shrink it into “a manageable problem”.(shrink the death toll?) After the Foley beheading, he lectured it was a political problem. True to form, he now is looking blame Congress for his policy on ISIS, in effect making it a political problem.

So I haven’t heard anyone make the case that Ebola is strictly a political problem, requiring a political solution. That would sound ridiculous. And apply all his other excuses on ISIS to Ebola and you come up with the same notion.

Could it be that the world is both not a large enough nor a small enough place to deal with either threat? Not large enough to have the resources to deal with such a heinous problem; not small enough to be able contain and mitigate them.

 

Today starts the official BS campaign on ISIS, speech to follow. The campaign on Ebola is under way. Maybe it’s easier to talk about a terrible disease ravaging borders in Africa, threatening the world. Much harder to talk about a plague of anti-human ideology spreading across borders like wildfire. I doubt he’ll discuss Ebola from the golf course.

“Major Garrett Asks Why Anyone Should Watch Obama’s ISIS Speech”

RightRing | Bullright

Putin the Conservative Superstar

This is an older article but so relevant. See previous post on Putin’s address.

The conservative right sees areas to praise Putin. If I told you a few years ago this would be the case, would you have  believed me?

Now he’s riding high on conservative steam.

 

Why Are American Conservatives Praising Putin?

Russia’s anti-gay policies deserve the scorn of U.S. conservatives.
Cathy Young | August 22, 2013 | Reason.com

    Russian President Vladimir Putin, the career KGB officer who has presided over the rollback of his country’s post-Communist freedoms and revived Cold War-style anti-Americanism, is an unlikely hero for American conservatives. Yet the Kremlin strongman has lately found some fans on the right who see him as a defender of Christian values — most recently, in the imbroglio over Russia’s new legal ban on gay “propaganda.” It is a sad misjudgment that does a disservice to the causes of conservatism, freedom, and religion alike.

Take a minute to inhale that. Its a good article too, aside from the subheading. But there is a point many miss. Sure, I have praised some of his moves myself. Does it make him a stalwart conservative? Put in relative terms, is he more conservative than Obama? Without doubt. I don’t think Putin is worried about his approvals either.

What amazes me is Putin’s theatrical disagreements with Obama on several fronts. He could be accused of hypocrisy too, but why bother when Vlad says stuff which makes sense to conservatives? That’s the point.

Putin can be crude and slick at times, and ruthless at others. He can rally the support of his people. Obama could take a lesson on that. Putin can appear conservative on fiscal and cultural issues. In other words, in areas Obama would never dare to venture.

It might demonstrate that the new American Left is more openly Marxist than Putin. If it were a political campaign, in many ways it is, Putin can run to the right of the progressive Left. But that is not hard to do. Hillary ran to the right of Obama – while darling Edwards ran to the Left — creating an illusion Obama was in the middle.

Consider that for decades  cultural Marxists were natural allies to ‘mother Russia’. Visions of Ted Kennedy and Andropov come to mind. They stuck it in our faces when they could. This is a different twist. Moscow knows the American Left’s record. So should conservatives. It was conservatives who actively opposed communism. (it was even popular to some Dems in the JFK era) Today is different. The mask is off for the Left.

On to Putin. He has made inroads with the people who historically were the most opposed to Russia. Just how could he do that? This article like others points it out. When he bagged the big Pike in the summer, fish was not the only thing biting. If conservatives are comparing his policies to ours, he’s come a long way. He knows it. Meanwhile, he appears less like the new Democrats, despite former alliance.

Spokesmen for several right-wing groups including the American Family Association have praised the Russian law, which prohibits any pro-gay speech or expression that could be accessible to minors. Veteran columnist Pat Buchanan has joined the Putin cheerleading squad. And, shockingly, the usually thoughtful author Rod Dreher, who blogs for The American Conservative, has added his own “1.5 Cheers for Putin.”
While condemning anti-gay violence and authoritarianism in Russia, Dreher praises Putin’s willingness to speak up for Christianity and laments that “post-Soviet Russia, for all its grievous flaws, is . . . more conscious of its Christian history and character than the United States.”
This is a truly grievous misunderstanding of the reality of religion and politics in 21st Century Russia. Russia today is outwardly far more religious than most of Western Europe, but it’s a religion of state more than church: Orthodox Christianity has taken Communism’s place as the new official ideology, with church membership an official badge of patriotism and loyalty.

More at Reason.com

It’s good politics for Putin. His staunchest chief enemy, conservatives, have suddenly been smitten by his moves. Who changed Putin or conservatives? We know Putin hasn’t changed his stripes, he changed the rules to allow him to regain power. (something some of us are leery of Obama doing) So he’s no hero for the rule of law. Yet he has won over some conservatives with his gimmickry.(and politics) He’s still that same Putin Obama promised more flexibility to. Now Putin seems to flirt with American conservatives. Age-old enemies. Like people play the dating game: present yourself as a noble partner while courting, then after the commitment the truth comes out.

Don’t be fooled, Putin is still the Russian bear. I think its dangerous to draw too many parallels. Pat Buchanan should know better than making very cordial comparisons to Russia and Putin. It’s too easy to take a few positions for common sense agreement with Putin. And still as easy to disagree on his traditional values and anti-gay stance we are supposed to condemn. But there is more lurking beneath the skin, just like Obama.

It is a fascinating change though. I leave you with Putin recently sounding more FDR:

Vladimir Putin pointed out the well-known attempts in recent years to impose an allegedly more progressive development model on other countries. But the result was invariably retrogression, barbarity and a high price in blood. On the other hand, the situation around Syria and now around Iran, too, proves that any international problem can and must be settled exclusively through political means, without ever resorting to the use of force, which, the Russian leader is certain, has no future and provokes rejection in a majority of world nations.

Recent address

Related https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/new-bear-is-the-traditional-bear/

RightRing | Bullright

Biblical prayer

Habakkuk’s Prayer

Habakkuk 3:2-19

LORD, I have heard of your fame;
I stand in awe of your deeds, O LORD.
Renew them in our day,
in our time make them known;
in wrath remember mercy.

God came from Teman,
the Holy One from Mount Paran.

Selah
His glory covered the heavens
and his praise filled the earth.

His splendor was like the sunrise;
rays flashed from his hand,
where his power was hidden.

Plague went before him;
pestilence followed his steps.

He stood, and shook the earth;
he looked, and made the nations tremble.
The ancient mountains crumbled
and the age-old hills collapsed.
His ways are eternal.

I saw the tents of Cushan in distress,
the dwellings of Midian in anguish.

Were you angry with the rivers, O LORD?
Was your wrath against the streams?
Did you rage against the sea
when you rode with your horses
and your victorious chariots?

You uncovered your bow,
you called for many arrows.
Selah
You split the earth with rivers;

the mountains saw you and writhed.

Torrents of water swept by;
the deep roared
and lifted its waves on high.

Sun and moon stood still in the heavens
at the glint of your flying arrows,
at the lightning of your flashing spear.

In wrath you strode through the earth
and in anger you threshed the nations.

You came out to deliver your people,
to save your anointed one.
You crushed the leader of the land of wickedness,
you stripped him from head to foot.
Selah

With his own spear you pierced his head
when his warriors stormed out to scatter us,
gloating as though about to devour
the wretched who were in hiding.

You trampled the sea with your horses,
churning the great waters.

I heard and my heart pounded,
my lips quivered at the sound;
decay crept into my bones,
and my legs trembled.
Yet I will wait patiently for the day of calamity
to come on the nation invading us.

Though the fig tree does not bud
and there are no grapes on the vines,
though the olive crop fails
and the fields produce no food,
though there are no sheep in the pen
and no cattle in the stalls,

yet I will rejoice in the LORD,
I will be joyful in God my Savior.

The Sovereign LORD is my strength;
he makes my feet like the feet of a deer,
he enables me to go on the heights.
For the director of music. On my stringed instruments. (NIV)

What a difference between Zimmerman and Gosnell

 I don’t remember the media being so concerned about the content of Sunday sermons before. That’s not usually headline coverage. Post Zimmerman verdict,  media wanted to know what pastors said, and they claimed pastors scrambled to  change their sermons.

 Okay, how many of them wanted pastors to speak about Gosnell or abortion? I don’t remember that call for concern. How much attention did they give that verdict? If the pastors did talk about it, then media and the left would accuse them of meddling in civil and political issues – since they claimed Roe/Wade is “politics”.

 Everyone is supposed to know Gosnell and abortion has no place in sermons according to the liberal left and secularists.  However, human rights? “Knock yourself out”, they only hope you will speak from the pulpits on that. Anytime, you don’t need a reason and you can weave the topic into anything. They encourage it.

 A genocide of 56 million and over 4 decades, no need to talk about that from pulpits, way too divisive. Better stick to human rights, social justice, love and peace. The courtroom seats went empty in Gosnell’s trial, but they didn’t miss a minute of this trial and ran almost non-stop coverage.

Now we know what is really important, so how many had sermons about Trayvon Martin, I wonder?

Notice the below article is Father Pfleger’s church in Chicago not the entire Catholic [C]hurch.

Catholic church protests Trayvon Martin killing

Gloria.TV – News Briefs  15/07/2013 

Father Pfleger [Photo credit]
CHICAGO (AP) — From pulpits to rallies, several black churches in Chicago joined the nationwide call for justice in protesting the shooting death of an unarmed black teenager in Florida.
The Rev. Michael Pfleger spoke out about the death of Trayvon Martin during Mass at St. Sabina Catholic Church, a prominent black Catholic institution. Churchgoers wore hooded sweatshirts, as Martin was wearing when he was slain Feb. 26. After Mass, nearly 100 people attended a rally outside the church where youth from St. Sabina performed poems and songs.
“The church has to rise up and get out of its sanctuaries and get into the streets,” Pfleger said.
Pfleger also wore the hood of his vestment robe over his head and called for racial justice. Pfleger is a white priest in charge of a largely black church, and has long advocated against violence.
During Mass in Chicago, Pfleger challenged the idea that children wearing hoodies should be treated as suspicious. One congregant held a sign reading, “We are all Trayvon Martin.”
From the U.K. photos of viiolence after the verdict

I bet there a whole lot of props they could have used for Gosnell or abortion.

UPDATE: I don’t believe or imply this is representative or speaks for the entire Catholic Church. And overall, they are very pro-life on abortion issues. There were many various churches mentioning it, as the media stressed. This is not to only single this one out.

A Chat with Ravi and “is America abandoning God?”

The Spurious Glitter of Pantheism, Part 4 of 4

Ravi Zacharias concludes his look at the rise of Eastern religion in the West. When did it start, and where will it take us?

In this series, and I only heard the fourth part, he brings home the idea of the introduction of Hinduism along with what has happened in the Western world. In part 4, he uses the precepts of Hinduism to exemplify the effects on western culture. The point here is not cause and effect but the parallel affects the ideas have had on western society.

This link downloads mp3. At least try to listen to the beginning.

For instance, he demonstrates the motive for introducing it was by “touching a nerve”. He used popular western criticism, which worked its will. I cannot say the philosopher or teacher’s name, but it was over 100 years ago. Its is worth listening to the way Ravi approaches it as an example.

The below video is a different interview Ravi did on:

“Is America Abandoning God?”

… from Pascal , to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to the media and Dawkins.

“Flirting with the total decimation of our culture”

About
Published on Jun 11, 2012
Ravi Zacharias and Bob Ditmer talk about a recent USA TODAY article that reports more Americans are declaring no religious affiliation according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey.

Ref:
The audio message: http://rzim.vo.llnwd.net/o43/MP3/JT/JT20130711.mp3
Series at RZIM: http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking-broadcasts/the-spurious-glitter-of-pantheism-part-4-of-4/
Video: http://youtu.be/yuOEAdROFUY “Is America abandoning God?”

Official “tolerance” alliance agenda with Muslims and Islam

DOJ: Social Media Posts Trashing Muslims May Violate Civil Rights

Judicial Watch – May 30, 2013 [*emphasis mine]
 

In its latest effort to protect followers of Islam in the U.S. the Obama Justice Department warns against using social media to spread information considered inflammatory against Muslims, threatening that it could constitute a violation of civil rights.

The move comes a few years after the administration became the first in history to dispatch a U.S. Attorney General to personally reassure Muslims that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is dedicated to protecting them. In the unprecedented event, Attorney General Eric Holder assured a San Francisco-based organization (Muslim Advocates) that urges members not to cooperate in federal terrorism investigations that the “us versus them” environment created by the U.S. government, law enforcement agents and fellow citizens is unacceptable and inconsistent with what America is all about.
“Muslims and Arab Americans have helped build and strengthen our nation,” Holder said after expressing that he is “grateful” to have Muslims as a partner in promoting tolerance, ensuring public safety and protecting civil rights. He also vowed to strengthen “crucial dialogue” between Muslim and Arab-American communities and law enforcement.
Evidently that was a precursor of sorts for an upcoming Tennessee event (“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society”) that will feature the region’s top DOJ official, who serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and an FBI representative. The goal is to increase awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles, according to a local newspaper report. The June 4 powwow is sponsored by the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee.
The area’s top federal prosecutor, Bill Killian, will address a topic that most Americans are likely unfamiliar with, even those well versed on the Constitution; that federal civil rights laws can actually be violated by those who post inflammatory documents aimed at Muslims on social media. “This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian says in the local news story. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
The DOJ political appointee adds in the article that the upcoming presentation will also focus on Muslim culture with a special emphasis on the fact that the religion is no different from others, even though some in the faith have committed terrorist acts, Christians have done the same. As an example he offers that the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. prior to 9/11 was committed by American Christians in Oklahoma City. He also mentioned the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting last year in which another Christian, an American white supremacist, fatally shot six people and wounded four others.
“Some of the finest people I’ve met are Muslims,” Killian said, adding later: “We want to inform everybody about what the law is, but more importantly, we want to provide what the law means to Muslims, Hindus and every other religion in the country. It’s why we came here in the first place. In England, they were using Christianity to further their power in government. That’s why the First Amendment is there.”
Over the years the Obama administration has embarked on a fervent crusade to befriend Muslims by creating a variety of outreach programs at a number of key federal agencies. For instance the nation’s Homeland Security covertly met with a group of extremist Arab, Muslim and Sikh organizations to discuss national security matters and the State Department sent a controversial, anti-America Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) to the Middle East to foster greater understanding and outreach among Muslim majority communities.
The Obama Administration has also hired a special Homeland Security adviser (Mohamed Elibiary) who openly supports a radical Islamist theologian and renowned jihadist ideologue and a special Islam envoy that condemns U.S. prosecutions of terrorists as “politically motivated persecutions” and has close ties to radical extremist groups.
The president has even ordered the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to shift its mission from space exploration to Muslim diplomacy and the government started a special service that delivers halal meals, prepared according to Islamic law, to home-bound seniors in Detroit. Who could forget Hillary Clinton’s special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have long banned them from the U.S.?
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2013/05/doj-social-media-posts-trashing-muslims-may-violate-civil-rights/

Better yet, from the local Tennessee paper:

Group sets meeting to increase tolerance of Muslims, culture

Tullahoma News
May21, 2013  [excerpt – informational]

CITY EDITOR
Brian Justice

A special meeting has been scheduled for the stated purpose of increasing awareness and understanding that American Muslims are not the terrorists some have made them out to be in social media and other circles.
“Public Disclosure in a Diverse Society” will be held from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4, at the Manchester-Coffee County Conference Center, 147 Hospitality Blvd.
Special speakers for the event will be Bill Killian, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Kenneth Moore, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Knoxville Division.
Sponsor of the event is the American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee — a 15-member board formed two years ago when the General Assembly was considering passing legislation that would restrict those who worship Sharia Law, which is followed by Muslims.
Killian and Moore will provide input on how civil rights can be violated by those who post inflammatory documents targeted at Muslims on social media.
“This is an educational effort with civil rights laws as they play into freedom of religion and exercising freedom of religion,” Killian told The News Monday. “This is also to inform the public what federal laws are in effect and what the consequences are.”
Killian said the presentation will also focus on Muslim culture and how, that although terrorist acts have been committed by some in the faith, they are no different from those in other religions.
He referred to the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing in which Timothy McVeigh, an American terrorist, detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995. Commonly referred to as the Oklahoma City Bombing, the attack killed 168 people and injured more than 800.
../
Zak Mohyuddin, a Muslim Advisory Council member, said a shortened version of a documentary called “Welcome to Shelbyville” will also be featured.
The documentary, produced by the Public Broadcasting Service, spotlights recent demographic changes in nearby Shelbyville, with a focus on the growing number of immigrants from Latin America and Somalia with many Somalis from the Bantu minority ethnic group which practices Islam.
Read more: http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=15360

—-

Thanks to Just Gene for the tip

I could write a thesis on the problems with this. But using Tim McVeigh as defense example? That one is really getting old. The truth is we’ve heard a whole lot since McVeigh. The left throws it out every opportunity they get, constantly using that bombing to indict the entire right – the outspoken right, evangelical or otherwise.  Along with extorting McVeigh as an example of the Christian faith,  which is a real stretch. They’ve done that for years.
Do you hear any mass hysteria about that bigotry speech toward the right? Never.  An American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee? What parallels are there to that?
Now too cute by half Muslims want to use McVeigh as a centerpiece to validate their case? That was one incident and the truth is, like in Boston, it is brought up all the time. It’s always thrown up to conservatives even when it doesn’t apply. But do they ever mention the Waco or Ruby Ridge episodes? No, just ol’ deranged Tim McVeigh – who  also justified killing children and innocent civilians as collateral damage. I don’t remember him having a following, and there was no shortage of people condemning it from…lets see….EVERYWHERE! But selective outrage and memory fails them about Jackboot Reno and the power of the “Justice” department.
Imagine the administration and DoJ engaging in collaborative efforts with those sorts of people?  Then look how they treated Tea Parties and patriots. Remember the memos about right-wing political extremists, with their suspicion lists including even soldiers returning. (soldiers a threat, not Islamists)  More of their version of fairness and social justice?
Anyway, they get a full VIP- audience to Muslims’ concerns from DoJ and the administration. When was the last tine the justice department sought to comfort your concerns as Christians or Jews? About government oppression? Or if you are an illegal or Hispanic, they give them an 800 number to call DoJ. But for Christians, they get the crushing power of government aimed at them and the cold shoulder treatment, as the IRS scandal shows. They all made Tim McVeigh into a millstone to hang around conservatives and Christians, they politicized it too.
Let’s not forget their crackdown on military chaplains praying in Jesus name, or the recent warnings about evangelizing in the military. And on, and on. Where does it end? This is no slippery slope, this is a cliff.

“Cozy on, dudes!” We have Islamophobia?
Related posts: Shariafying Government, Obama cozies up with Muslim Brotherhood.

Selling Clergy to Sell Gun Control

Biden Wants Pastors, Rabbis and Nuns to Tell Their Flocks: Enacting More Gun Control Is the Moral Thing to Do

May. 7, 2013 2:21pm Billy Hallowell — The Blaze

WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) — Vice President Joe Biden has a commandment for pastors, rabbis and nuns: He wants them to tell their flocks that enacting gun control is the moral thing to do. But another vote may have to wait until Congress wraps up work on an immigration overhaul.

Biden met for two-and-a-half hours Monday with more than a dozen leaders from various faith communities – Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh, to name a few. Both Biden and the faith leaders encouraged each other not to give up on what has been an arduous and thus far fruitless effort by Biden and President Barack Obama to pass new gun laws in the wake of December’s schoolhouse shooting in Connecticut.

Around a large, circular table in a conference room on the White House grounds, Biden waxed optimistic about prospects for passing a bill, according to four participants who spoke to The Associated Press after the meeting. Biden’s chief of staff, Bruce Reed, joined the group, as did a handful of Obama aides who work on faith-based outreach. The meeting closed with a meditation and a prayer for action.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/07/biden-wants-pastors-rabbis-and-nuns-to-tell-their-flocks-enacting-more-gun-control-is-the-moral-thing-to-do/

Marriage…or whatever

The problem is very simple. I know, most people here know this but I’ll say it anyway. The word that is all the rage and the crux of Leftists’ argument is “marriage equality” But is that true?

That is a subjective term.(for their purposes) It means whatever the user wants it to mean. Marriage equality is defined by the user. Marriage equality for the bigamist is marrying a harem. Marriage for someone else is something else. Do I see them define what “marriage equality” means? Of course not, it is as intentionally vague as most language the left uses.

So it will be up to the person to claim what “marriage” or “marriage equality” is to them. A person wants marriage equality, which to him/her means marrying whatever they want or choose to. Then to deny them that is to deny them equality. But the minute anyone draws a line that it (equality) applies to gays but not others, then they will no longer be standing for “equality” will they? They will be denying someone else their right to “equality”. Get it? When society tries to say it can not apply here or there, then bye-bye equality.

The people who adopted that term as their political lingo will have to apply it to wherever someone demands their “marriage equality” — whatever that means to them. Therefore, there cannot be any laws against the outliers, because that would not be equality and be denying someone equality. So there cannot ever be equality until everyone gets what he/she/it demands. (which by my calculation is the second Tuesday of never) — unless you think it is possible to grant every possibility.

Noun

1.The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
2.A relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts.

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (

The fourteenth amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws. I couldn’t marry another man. My wife couldn’t marry another woman. Nor could I marry a cow either. See that is the thing, we are under the same rules.

On the other hand, what they want is to expand the definition of marriage. And yes, it does affect us all, since we are all afforded equal protection of the law. So in effect, they are changing the definition for everyone. It shall mean whatever you want it to mean.

However, no one was denying them the right(s) of marriage, same as the rest of us have. We have that equality now. They are about changing the definition not about “equality”.

But under their newfound definition of equality, no one could be denied the institution of marriage — however one wants to apply it or interpret it. That is what they are asking. It is not about “equality”, it is about ever-expanding definitions of what marriage IS. Remember Bill Clinton: “it depends what the definition of “is” is“. That’s what they are saying.

So all the talk about equality is just that, talk. But no one bugs them about the specious arguments, though they will attack Christians for making a case for the conventional marriage definition. Doing that is supposedly taboo.

Under their ever-expansive definition(s), there are no parameters. It shall mean whatever a particular person wants it to mean. We don’t offer that option in other places either. Remember, they say it is only about equality.

Digging deeper

Now people can say why does this matter because “it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”, as Jefferson said? It could be more relevant now than you thought.

This week the NYT took it on itself again to be the teller of all things and frame the political debate. But they framed it using the Methodist Church in their cross hairs. Why this is a central issue at all is because of a prominent retired Methodist pastor who performed a same-sex wedding for his son in NY, back in October 2012. Now the Times zeros in on him.

He happens to be the former Dean of Yale and Drew Universities, and presently professor emeritus of theological ethics at Yale. So they found a pastor with plenty of credentials and bona-fides to press the issue of same-sex marriage. That is what this is about, not just allowing same-sex marriage but having it approved by clergy and institutions of the church.

For long the general conference of the Methodist Church did not permit pastors to perform such weddings. They still don’t. But that did not stop this activist, academic, pastor from acting on his own. It gets worse though, because of his explanations. He said he wanted to perform the wedding because it is his son, and he said he had no intention of acting in civil disobedience by doing it. And he said that when there is a rule that is not right, and you cannot change it, then you break it. All this rationale flowed from him as his reasoning for doing it. Then there was the quiet reprimand he received which asked him to apologize and promise not to perform them again. He rebuffed that offer. Now he is in clear defiance.

The problem is that all those reasons don’t jive. He was not doing it for civil disobedience, then pretty much admits he was. As well as saying if you don’t like the rule then you break it.(is that what we are taught) I can’t imagine this flying in either Yale or Drew for professors underneath him. Does he tell them to ignore what rules they don’t like? No, of course not. But for him this is his reasoning. Defy the authority of the church which ordains him as a minister.

As bad as that is, I can’t say that the UM Church position and reaction was much better. Though they gave him the opportunity to say he would not do it again and he wouldn’t. But he is not doing it for civil disobedience? Oh really! That means he is not in compliance with that rule and who knows what other rules he cares to take issue with? Must be this is what theological ethics teaches?

So anyone can see this is not just about gay-marriage etc. It is about a whole lot more.
referrence article:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/nyregion/caught-in-methodisms-split-over-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

 

These are pertinent excerpts from the piece.
Sometimes, when what is officially the law is wrong, you try to get the law changed,” Dr. Ogletree, a native of Birmingham, Ala., said in a courtly Southern drawl over a recent lunch at Yale, where he remains an emeritus professor of theological ethics. “But if you can’t, you break it.
“I was inspired,” Dr. Ogletree said. “I actually wasn’t thinking of this as an act of civil disobedience or church disobedience. I was thinking of it as a response to my son.”
In late January, Mr. Paige and Dr. Ogletree, accuser and accused, met face-to-face in an effort to resolve the dispute without a church trial. Mr. Paige, who declined to be interviewed for this article, citing the confidentiality of the proceedings, asked that Dr. Ogletree apologize and promise never to perform such a ceremony again. He refused.
“I said, this is an unjust law,” he recalled telling Mr. Paige.

He siad he did it in response to his son, but refusses to say he would not do it again? And he claimed he wasn’t thinking of civil disobedience when doing it, but that is exactly how he rationalizes it.  Are all those reasons hard to accept?

“Dearly beloveds, we are gathered here together to join the church to same-sex marriage. Any objections, speak now or forever hold your peace.”

Boston 101

What have we learned about the bombing other than ingredients for these devices of havoc are common materials and there are manuals to create them on the internet? How many times have we heard that this week?

It’s not about the chemistry of making these devices, as they’d have us believe, it’s much more about the motive and rationale for what these people do.

Yea, something else is very common.

It won’t take long for media to get up to speed on the same mantra we usually hear. So here is a look at the favorite defense the Islamic defenders use whenever the opportunity presents itself. Which seems to be quite often.

Take a look at this video highlighting what is going on in the guise of the dialogue we always hear about:

[description] http://www.answeringmuslims.com
Muslim brothers Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev bombed the Boston Marathon. Yet the media are once again assuring us that such attacks have nothing to do with Islam. Does the Qur’an agree?

Whenever they tell us all is at peace and there is no basis for this terrorism, remember that part when they’re busy making excuses for the very terrorism we are facing.

O’Reilly’s No Thumping Zone

Front Cover

 
This should be Bill O’Reilly’s new tag line:

Caution: You are entering a “No Thumping Zone”.

Bill O’Reilly skews opponents of same-sex marriage, calling them Bible thumpers.

And when people take issue with him for his characterization, like Rush Limbaugh, he blows his top. Laura Ingraham was on the receiving end when he dug his heels in and repeatedly said his term was “accurate” and deserving.

She disagreed and he went bully on her. Apparently the spin did not stop for same-sex marriage. Then he lied when he said he gve her “a good two minutes” – little over 60 seconds– to counter his position, after he cut her off twice before that.

So the spin did not stop there.
 

Full interview

And Bill is the chief “Culture Warrior”?
Mark Levin responds to the remarks. (audio)

Front Cover

Obviously not Bill.