Have you noticed on virtually every mainstream media newscast, when referring to the voter’s demand for border security or to the partial government shutdown, they refer to the issue as “Trump’s wall?”
Not “our wall” or “the nation’s wall”, or “the needed wall”, but “Trump’s wall”, as if he is the ONLY one promoting the wall, fence, border security or national security. Trump won the election, receiving 306 electoral votes compared to Clinton’s 234, primarily on the basis of the electorate demanding enhanced border security and embracing Trump’s promise of a wall.
Have these media all been assigned the same script – the same talking points? This is enough to make a conspiracy theory skeptic into a conspiracy theorist! Of the dozens of media outlets I follow, only the 5% that remain conservative refrain from calling it “Trump’s wall.”
Trump’s wall: An intended and biased slander.
As has been pointed out, Obama recently had a 10’ wall constructed around his DC home. Is that Obama’s wall, or a wall to protect his home from violent left wingers – Bill Ayers types?
The Vatican has a wall. Does the media call it “the Pope’s wall?”
I hate to think that most media are controlled by former left wing San Francisco, drug-addict hippies from the 60’s or their more recent clones. But nothing else makes much sense.
I cannot fathom those who dis the concept of national security and its close relative, border security, of which a difficult to penetrate wall or fence are major components.
I guess the opposition is comprised of the same vocal crowd who condemn “nationalism”, “patriotism”, honoring parents, respecting the elderly, working for a living and who praise multi-gendered Boy Scouts.
It is a sick, sick culture we find ourselves in. A nation cannot long stand with such.
Many folks have declared the discussion of politics to be off-limits; impolite; a prohibited topic of discussion, whether at a social event, casual lunch, or during a family visit. Being among homo sapiens whose predisposition it has been from ages past to classify things, I have asked myself this question:
Why are many opposed to discussion of politics and who are those most likely to oppose?
I’ll speculate the answer to this question by putting myself in the mindset of wanting to avoid such discussion.
What might my reasons be?
First, it might be that my mind is made up. I know I’m right. I don’t want to be bothered by someone else’s opinion. It would be a waste of time.
Second, it might be that I just don’t care – a "Que Será, Será” attitude: Whatever will be, will be. Or shorthand in today’s vernacular: “Whatever.” Leave me out of it.
Third, it might be that I want to avoid an “argument” because in my life experience I’ve come to consider “spirited discussion” to be argumentative and unpleasant; I need my “safe space”, I am a “snowflake”. In short, I want to be “polite” via self-censorship.
Fourth, it might be that I have an overly broad definition of “politics.” I might consider a number of essential human interactions to be encompassed by the word “politics” and I just don’t want to discuss them because I consider them to be “political”; too dicey; too controversial; too subjective. What are some of the verboten topics some consider to be components of politics that are declared off limits?
Economics and tax policy
Appropriate size and reach of government
The extent that our human affairs are regulated
Ability to possess our own means of self-defense verses a mandate to rely solely on government law enforcement
The extent to which man or cosmos controls climate
The extent we allow our nation to be controlled by outside (international) regulation and control
The extent we control who enters or who is prohibited from entering our nation, and on what basis
The aspects of “religion” that are subject to first amendment protections and what aspects should not be. Examples: Santeria rituals; Islamic Sharia.
There are likely many more topics that folks might place under the umbrella of “politics” as an excuse to avoid discussion.
All too often, we avoid discussing a broad array of topics that should be discussed such as the topics listed above because we or others have a waaay overly broad definition of “politics.”
So this brief analysis causes me to wonder what ideological predispositions might tend to cause one to avoid discussion of “politics?”
In my own life experience, and tempting the label of bigot and various forms of –phobery, here is my list and reasons for their inclusion:
The clueless because they don’t know any better
Willfully ignorant because they refuse new information
Those caught up in social media, career, grandchildren, health issues, sports, TV and Hollywood entertainment personality cults because they have no time or interest in anything else
Narcissists because they are self-centered; no room for interests outside of “self.”
Liberals and progressives because they look down on conservative thought and conservatives, no matter how well informed, as backwards and not worthy of respect or discussion with them.
Whenever any of these classifications of folks are opposed to conservative thought, the polite ones merely refuse discussion. The others resort to demonstrations (sometimes violent), name calling and mockery. Most of our colleges and universities do both. Public schools, overall, stifle the open discussion of “politics” because such discussion might conflict with the official socialist indoctrination agenda.
And the Churches. Ahh, the Churches. Most choose to avoid discussion of “politics” at all cost. And by their avoidance they avoid applying Biblical doctrine to many crucial aspects of our lives. For that omission, our culture is paying dearly.
This concludes my primordial urge to classify those who dislike political discussion.
There
are quite a few folks out there who convinced themselves that the 5,000 to
10,000 Hondurans, Guatemalans, Mexicans, and unknown others promising to enter
our nation illegally is not an invasion.
For
this group comprised of liberal media, globalists, never-Trumpers, millennials,
progressives, socialists, social justice warriors, Democrats wanting more
illicit votes, and those who couldn’t care less about national security or
American culture, here’s your sign:
Here
are a number of signs that those of average intellect or better would cause one
to conclude that this migration is indeed an invasion.
The migration has been planned and
organized with the intent to “invade”, I.e. enter another nation illegally
Most migrants have expressed an
intent to enter the United States illegally
Many migrants are carrying the
flag of their home nation (giving the impression of a national force
intending invasion) which begs the question then of “why are they leaving
their home nation?”
Many within the migration have already
demonstrated their lawlessness by breaking through barriers and forcing
their way through the national borders of Guatemala and Mexico.
Most of the migrants expect to be
employed in the US, lowering wages and filling positions that entry level
employees who are currently US citizens must now compete for – a form of
plunder.
Most of the migrants expect to
receive US “booty” in the form of free health care, free education,
subsidized housing, and reduced in-state tuition for “illegals” offered by
a number of state governors – another form of plunder.
Though denied by liberal media, it
is otherwise common knowledge that some unknown hundreds are comprised of
MS-13 gang members, ISIS, or others whose ideology is at odds with US
culture and laws. See HERE and HERE
It is not likely that everyone is
unarmed.
It is not likely that everyone is
free of transmissible disease.
As a
further “sign”, here is the FreeDictionary.com definition of invasion:
Definition
of “invasion”:
1. (Military)
the act of invading with armed forces
2. any
encroachment or intrusion: an invasion of rats.
3. the
onset or advent of something harmful, esp of a disease
4. (Pathology)
pathol the spread of cancer from its point of origin into surrounding
tissues
5. (Botany)
the movement of plants to a new area or to an area to which they are not native
The
characteristics of this “migration” clearly meet one or more definitions of
invasion.
Here is
a video from a knowledgeable Judicial Watch expert discussing the nature of
this migration:
And of
course Snopes and other leftist truth sites claim that there is nothing to see
here – anyone who claims there is anyone but good upstanding Hondurans yearning
to breath free is merely a “conspiracy theorist.”
Everyone believes that sometime in their lives they were a victim of something. But the “victim”/"victimizer” similarities with the self-identified victimhood of the left stop there.
As discussed in a previous blog, the left, inclusive of Antifa, BLM, MeToo, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, and Democrats use their “victim” label as an excuse to demonize and often physically attack those with whom they do not agree. Most recently, these targets of their wrath include Conservatives, Christians, Men, Caucasians, and the elderly. These are all considered the “victimizers” – those who are responsible for the victim’s status as victims.
The point, however, goes well beyond the mere self-declaration of victimhood. It goes to the reaction of leftist “victims” – the words and actions the victims use to demonize, slander, threaten, intimidate and commit violence against the alleged victimizer group.
The overwhelming tactic of Conservatives and Christians, when felt to be victims - and many of us increasingly feel thus – is to write, call, talk, pray, forgive, dialogue, and base our arguments on faith, facts and reason.
Not so with the left. These conservative tactics are but a small pea shooter within the arsenal of tactics used by the left. The left uses the playbook of Bill Ayers, Barack’s and Michelle’s pal, who relished blowing up buildings. They use the playbook of their favorite historical heroes like Lenin, Mao, Che, and Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”
One of my favorites from “Rules” is this one:
“…you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”
And that is exactly what we have been experiencing from the left. This “rule” is a rewrite of the Marxist phrase “the end justifies the means”, a Machiavellian concept that describes any crafty or deceitful action used for one's own advantage.
And the left has done this in spades. Every slander (think Kavanaugh); every accusation (think Trump/Russia); every violent, destructive demonstration (think Antifa); every rant against men (think “MeToo”); every demonstration against cops (think Black Lives Matter) – each of these is done under the cloak of “moral superiority.” And such moral superiority is felt to justify ANY MEANS – lie, cheat, steal, rig votes, promote violence, destruction and vilification – to accomplish the purpose of the victim, which is what?
To discredit, overcome and gain superiority and control over the alleged victimizer.
And the labels of “victimizers” are not limited to just the justifiable individual perpetrators. They extend to entire classes of people: all men, all cops, all Conservatives, all Christians, all whites, all patriots. This is called “discrimination”, but far be it from the left to admit that.
The distinction is that the left does NOT take the moral high road in spite of the image they wish to portray. Conservatives and Christians, for the most part, do. We do not believe “the end justifies the means.” The moral high road is sticking to moral means to achieve a moral end. The left believes that any immoral, illegal, or violent means is justified by their end - which completely discredits whatever their purpose and goals may be.
You may be “white”, aka “Caucasian.” You might also love your country, want it to prosper, want to defend it. That might describe a “nationalist.” Actually, a common definition of “nationalist” is “devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.” But to the left, this means you are a racist white national.
So, does being “white” and being a “nationalist” make one a racist, hater and bigot? Advocates of Social Justice would like to make us think so.
Just who advocates “social justice?” Generally, leftists, socialists, progressives, Communists, Antifa, and Black Live Matter, MeToo, and most feminists.
What do these groups have in common with social justice? Each group has two primary attributes: 1) They believe they are a victim, and 2) they believe anyone who is better off is the victimizer, the oppressor, an evil being, or hater.
Being a victimizer, oppressor, an evil being or hater of course justifies being demonized. Call whites who love their country a “white nationalist” or “racist bigot hater.” Call males “chauvinist pigs”, “misogynists”. Call anyone who has a bigger house or nicer car a “greedy no good capitalist.” It won’t matter that these alleged “victimizers” are upstanding, hardworking, moral individuals. That is beside the point for social justice leftists.
The ages old sin of envy and jealousy is deployed as a weapon to further the cause of the left and the cause of social justice in particular.
What motivates social justice warriors? What is their underlying belief system? First, they believe “equal outcomes” is much more important than “equal opportunity (*).” They not only want the “opportunity” playing field to be leveled, they demand that the distribution of resources be leveled: Income, capital, assets, possessions. Anyone who possesses less for any reason, including indolence, incompetence, or poor life choices is the victim. Anyone who has more than they have for any reason, including hard work, good fortune, or wisely applied intelligence, is the oppressor. Victims must be celebrated and promoted. Oppressors must be condemned, demonized, and in some examples in world history, slaughtered en masse (Jews were seen as wealthy bankers who financially oppressed others. Nazi’s and Muslims grabbed onto this belief as an excuse for genocide.)
So, here’s what happens to our words in furtherance of the social justice cause:
White means racist because whites are seen as the ones at the top of the food chain.
Male means domineering and mean, because males are seen as historically domineering over females.
Nationalist means hating all other races and nations because Globalism promises “equal outcomes” more than freedom does.
Patriot means dangerous, militant far right radical because patriots want to defend their nation.
Merriam-Webster provides an excellent comparison of “Patriotism and Nationalism” HERE. The article demonstrates the recent negative twist to our understanding of “nationalism.” It won’t be long before the word “patriotism” suffers the same fate at the hands of globalists and the left.
Here are some matching concepts to consider:
Conservatism invokes ideas of…
Nationalism
Patriotism
Strong borders
Equal opportunity
Capitalism
Common law-/Bible-based justice
Promotion of self defense including gun rights
Honors creativity, hard work, self-motivation, self sufficiency
Tolerates most opposing views
God honoring, Bible believing (mostly), traditional family oriented; reliance on God for justice, mercy, help, protection.
Perception of Islam as a historically violent, supremacist ideology and a proven threat to Western civilization
Promotes using words in their traditional sense without distorting the language to mean the opposite.
Lower taxes, less regulation, smaller government
Use of facts more than emotion
Equates with “libertarian”, “Constitutionalist”, “Republican” (mostly)
Progressivism invokes ideas of…
Globalism
Protester, seditionist
Open borders
Equal outcomes
Forced wealth redistribution
“Social justice” as a ruse to promote forced equality of outcomes
Opposition to effective self defense, especially via use of guns
Honors victimhood, protecting desires to do nothing productive
Intolerant of most opposing views, often with violence, while it calls for “tolerance”
Atheist (mostly), against traditional morality and families; reliance on government to take away from the “haves” to give to the “have nots”.
Perception of Islam as an oppressed “religion of peace”
Promotes distorting our language: Homosexual becomes “gay”; believers in morality become “intolerant”, those against evil behavior become “haters”; titles of legislation are purposely misleading such as “’Affordable’ Health Care” actually becoming unaffordable for many.
Higher taxes, more regulation, bigger government
Use of emotion more than facts
Equates with Socialism, Communism, liberalism, Democrat, RINO
HERE is an article that further discusses problems with the Social Justice movement.
__________________
* I could argue that even “equal opportunity” policy of our federal government is a giant step toward social justice. Affirmative action legislation, for example, is a form of reverse discrimination. It takes opportunity away from those who have earned it or who are best qualified, and give it to those who have not earned it or who are less qualified. Equal opportunity is an “equal outcome” policy in sheep’s clothing.
An invasion force, a virtual army of over 7,500 migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico, is hellbent to illegally cross the US border. Along the way they break laws and destroy obstacles in their path. So far they have illegally entered Mexico, and as of October 23, they have 1,000 miles to go to the closest US border crossing.
In fact, Mexican news outlets HERE are now reporting that there are over 14,000 who are part of the march north.
The fake news on main stream media puts their misleading, emotional spin on the whole corrupt affair with their selective photography and misleading interviews.
“Trump, meanwhile, in a series of tweets asserted that "criminals and unknown Middle Easterners" are amid the crowd, for which he offered no evidence. ”
To demonstrate that Trump is a liar, ABC switched over to their Latin reporter, Bio Benítez, who they proudly claim was dispatched into the middle of the mob, where he interviewed a very sweet woman and her son to prove that Trump was wrong.
Or could it possibly be true that ABC News performed a selective, well scripted slander of Trump out of their leftist play book by picking out one of the very few women and children in the mob of over 80% men?
ABC ignored this headline from two days earlier:
100 ISIS Terrorists Caught in Guatemala as Central American Caravan Heads to U.S.
In a startling revelation, Guatemala’s president announced in the country’s largest newspaper that nearly 100 ISIS terrorists have been apprehended in the impoverished Central American nation. Why should Americans care about this? A caravan of Central American migrants is making its way north. Let’s not forget that Guatemala is one of the countries that bombarded the U.S. with illegal immigrant minors under Barack Obama’s open border free-for-all. They came in droves from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala through the Mexican border and for years Uncle Sam rolled out the welcome mat offering housing, food, medical treatment and a free education
A terrorist could have easily slipped in considering the minors, coined Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), were not properly vetted and some turned out to be violent gangbangers who went on to commit heinous crimes in their adopted land of opportunity. In fact, the nation’s most violent street gang, Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), was energized by the barrage of UACs. The Texas Department of Public Safety even issued a report documenting how the MS-13 emerged as a top tier gang in the state thanks to the influx of illegal alien gang members that came with the UACs. At the time more than 60,000 UACs—many with criminal histories—had stormed into the U.S. in a matter of months. Tens of thousands more eventually made it north.
Much more evidence exists of Middle Easterners and non-Latin elements are part of this invasion as reported by Laura Ingraham below:
Women and children are positioned near the front of the marching mob as “human shields” to intimidate police and to present a wonderful pro-migrant, but false, photo op.
Does ABC care about this? Apparently not. They would rather use their emotion-laden air time to slander our President.
Here is another example of Fake News from the left-leaning Associated Press. In a recent report they highlighted quotes from fellow leftists, in highly emotional fashion:
““It is a shame that a president so powerful uses this caravan for political ends,” said Irineo Mujica of the group Pueblo Sin Fronteras — People Without Borders — which works to provide humanitarian aid to migrants.”
Political ends? My God, this is a freakin’ illegal invasion by a lawless army! The AP report continues…
“Some have questioned the timing so close to the vote and whether some political force was behind it, though by all appearances it began as a group of about 160 who decided to band together in Honduras for protection and snowballed as they moved north.
“No one is capable of organizing this many people,” Mujica said, adding that there are only two forces driving them: “hunger and death.”
I’ll add several more “forces driving them”:
Free American welfare
Free American medical care
Free American education
Free American meals
For some unknown number,
an opportunity to terrorize our nation
an opportunity to rape, steal, and kill
an opportunity to expand their cartels and peddle drugs
The AP was so kind as to send in a team of their emotion pandering leftist journalists to further report this:
A team of AP journalists traveling with the caravan for more than a week has spoken with Hondurans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans, but has not met any Middle Easterners, who Trump suggested were “mixed in” with the Central American migrants.
This coming from “a team of AP journalists”, likely comprised of 20-somethings sympathetic to this event or who were likely incapable of distinguishing a “Middle Easterner” from a “Middle Martian.”
Here is more selective interviewing:
Ana Luisa Espana, a laundry worker from Chiquimula, Guatemala, joined the caravan as she saw it pass through her country.
Even though the goal is to reach the U.S. border, she said: “We only want to work and if a job turns up in Mexico, I would do it. We would do anything, except bad things.”
Denis Omar Contreras, a Honduran-born caravan leader also with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, said accusations that the caravan is harboring terrorists should stop.
“There isn’t a single terrorist here,” Contreras said. “We are all people from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua. And as far as I know there are no terrorists in these four countries, at least beyond the corrupt governments.”
Not a single terrorist in the army of 7,500. He would know. I’m sure he did a security check on all 7,500 hundred of them. And he certainly has no bias; no axe to grind. Certainly not.
And there you have it, from the unbiased, squeaky clean Associated Press, with emphasis on the first syllable of their name.
Thank God for Trump who has the kahunas to state facts not driven by blind deceptive emotion – and who hopes to defend US citizens from a lawless, blood-sucking hoard.
Or is it kinder and gentler to suggest “there are many fine [lawbreaking] folks in that group [army] heading north. It is highly unlikely [likely] that there are any [likely hundreds of] bad people [MS-13; ISIS; pedophiles; ex-cons] among the poor migrants [army well-funded by someone] who just want a place to work and be family [aka Honduran mafia][suck blood].
__________________
PS: For those who question my use of the term “army” when referring to this group of “walkers”, I offer you this further explanation:
When a large mass of organized people – e.g. 7,500 to 10,000 - comprised of foreign, non-citizens, who along the way violate laws and destroy property, with intent to illegally enter another nation and further intent to consume that nation's resources with an unknown significant number likely a criminal or terrorist element, heck yes it is an invading army. There is little significant difference between walking and marching. The results will be the same as if they were a literal invading army.
Definition of “army”: A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare. “Warfare” means “Armed conflict. Military operations marked by a specific characteristic: guerrilla warfare; chemical warfare [in this case illegally breaking down barriers and or crossing borders with intent to influence or control the defending nation and subjugate its resources.]. A state of disharmony or conflict.
I’ve frequently expressed my hope that churches would more directly promote Biblical truths that impact the moral lapses in our culture. A recent blog HERE listed all the things that sermons scrupulously avoid. Repeated below is a list of what most churches avoid discussing to avoid offending…
Don’t discuss homosexuality. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss gay marriage. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss abortion. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss out of wedlock pregnancies. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss the government’s incentive sapping welfare system. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss excessive reliance on government entitlements. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss the evils of Islam. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss the overblown role of government that displaces personal and church responsibilities. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss rampant illegal immigration. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss patriotism and building a strong nation. It might offend someone. Don’t discuss the Christian foundations of our nation. It might offend someone.
It is not unusual for churches to take several weeks – virtually hours worth of sermons - to elaborate on a few verses of Scripture. I’ll use the first 9 verses of Philippians, potentially the subject of 2 or 3 sermons, as an example:
Philippians (NIV)
1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus,
To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons[a]:
2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 I thank my God every time I remember you.4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart and, whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God’s grace with me. 8 God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.
9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.
Show me one word, phrase or verse in those 9 verses that noticeably or specifically addresses ANY of the cultural or governance issues facing our nation today. “Good works”, sure. “Pray with joy”, good. “Love may abound”, right. “Pure and blameless”, absolutely.
Some will suggest that these noble but vague admonitions are enough to get us on the right track toward addressing the moral problems facing our culture. I will suggest that such noble, but vague, admonitions constitute nothing more than hoping for subliminal assimilation and eventual application to our cultural lapses. We are expecting people to use their imaginations to somehow apply these ideals to specifics amidst the hundreds of hours of explicit contradictory media we are exposed to every day.
Stated another way, we are asking people who listen to a half hour sermon comprised of highly generalized admonitions to overcome much larger quantities of explicit exposure to liberal and immoral media and entertainment.
I suggest that the Christian thing to do – not the Democrat or Republican thing to do – is for the Church to relate these fine admonitions, in unmistakable terms and examples, to the the things the Church today seems hell-bent on avoiding (see my list, above). Every one of the moral lapses in our nation that I list above are addressed in Scripture in some form or another. Sometimes those clear Biblical positions are discounted with the excuse that the Bible has conflicting sections or is subject to various interpretations. True. Truth can be distorted or misapplied. Sure, many people believe the Bible is just fables. But it is the responsibility of the Church to apply these sound Biblical principles to our lives and our culture in ways that minimize the need for subliminal assimilation – vague impressions without explicit guidance.
Here are excerpts from earlier blogs that elaborate on this point:
These are all components of what many Church leaders define as “politics”, discussion of which is to be avoided at all costs. Off limits. Don’t cause dissension. Don’t offend. Let’s avoid these topics so we can attract more members – more potential “converts” or more revenue. This “big tent” priority sounds more like the aspiration of a political party than a legitimate priority of the Church.
The whole Bible, from beginning to end, discusses the relationships between God, governments, and mankind. It begins with the first interactions between Adam and Eve and God, with Satan as the foreshadow of government: The antagonist; the interloper. The relationship between God, the people, the Laws, the Judges and the Kings continues throughout the Old Testament. The New Testament brings about a cleansing from oppressive Laws through Jesus Christ. It renews the spirit of the personal relationship between God and the individual which was intended from the beginning. Throughout, it continues to demonstrate the tug of war between our innate evil tendencies and what God desires of us as a “higher law”, superior to all the laws created by either secular or religious laws.
But the modern Church appears to prefer to ignore these themes. It prefers justifying our surrender to the culture and government overreach, declaring its overly broad definition of “politics” as taboo; off limits.
Instead, the Church finds a comfortable corner of Scripture concerning faith, personal salvation, and how much better we will all feel. Sin? What’s that? Can it even be defined anymore since such a large part of the Church not merely excuses but embraces what was formerly universally understood to be sin. Without acknowledgement of “sin”, how can there be forgiveness and reconciliation? Then who needs Christ? Wow, we are now free from the constraints of religion. Imagine, as John Lennon did.
And now, whether a misquote or a revelation from an apostate, an official of the Catholic Church has proclaimed “there is no hell” after earlier excusing himself from criticism of rampant pedophilia in the Church with “who am I to judge.”
Without a “hell” there is no constraint. Both individuals and governments can do whatever they please. Wipe away all sense of right and wrong, don’t judge, and we have the ultimate clean slate for us to be made in the image of government instead of in the image of God. Who needs God if there is no sin and no hell? This is the ultimate path to Communism, the “ideal” that has led to more dictatorships, more death, and more loss of freedom than any other ideology with the exception of Islam.
The Church is allowing the culture to destroy it by its silence.
And from one of my 50 favorite websites, American Vision, here is a worthwhile article titled “Should Preachers Address Politics from the Pulpit.” It touches on something about preaching “the whole counsel of God.” Modern churches should try it some time.
I attended a breakfast at a local restaurant with men from a Baptist Church in “mostly” conservative rural western North Carolina.
The two men across from me were discussing some unfortunate event when I flippantly mentioned that someone will blame it on Trump or on global warming.
That perked up the as yet unknown liberal seated next to me who pointedly asked me – “so you don’t believe in global warming?”
I responded with “actually there is cyclical global warming, but unlike most on the left, I don’t think human’s have a significant impact. The solar cycles have much more influence.”
He persisted with “so you don’t mind industries that destroy the environment.” He mentioned and dwelt on decades-old deforestation from pollutants downwind from some factories.
“That is a bit of a red herring”, I answered. “I don’t believe in shutting down entire industries or depressing our economy based on half-baked environmental hunches. Yes, industries should be sensibly regulated, like the coal industry, with appropriate pollutant-trapping devices, but the Obama administration wanted to go to extremes based on overly presumptuous and arrogant ‘science’.” And the clincher: Pollutants from smoke stacks killing nearby vegetation has nothing to do with ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change.’ It is simply a poison applied to a plant, like a weed killer. Consequently, his challenging comments were ‘red herrings’ on several levels.
Tactic One of Liberals: Red Herrings - something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. In this case it was an extreme, accusatory gesture.
This liberal’s “red herring” was an extreme absurdity, that I wanted to “destroy the environment because I didn’t believe in US human-caused global warming.” My rebuttal was the fact of the left’s actions to destroy industries based on overly-presumptuous and arrogant science. It is fact that Obama virtually shut down the coal industry for the sake of his dubious global warming presumptions.
A bit later the conversation drifted toward our little downtown, and the problem of parking. I mentioned a city parking lot that charges $3.00 per hour – and the likelihood that such charges hurt local businesses. I expressed hope the City would provide free parking to benefit businesses that already pay a fair amount of City taxes.
The liberal chimed in: “There are only 600 residences in the City that pay taxes – that’s too few to support that!”
I had to remind his tepid memory that 10 seconds earlier I was talking about businesses that pay taxes, not residences. He deflected from and twisted the meaning of my example.
Tactic Two of Liberals: Deflection – changing key words or ideas to discredit yours. Deflection is a diversionary tactic so that one’s own point of view, one’s facts, remain unchallenged and unquestioned. I was speaking of businesses paying taxes; he switched to word to “residents” paying taxes.
What made this experience less than warm and fuzzy was that this man has been in the area for decades, and had served on various boards and commissions for a number of years. The words “loud”, “arrogant” and “over-bearing” came to mind upon reflection of this unpleasant and challenging encounter.
These are the tactics of liberals.
Oh, I need to mention, while the outlying rural areas of the County are conservative, the little City itself is very liberal.
___________________
Lessons learned: Not all Baptists are conservative and little Cities in the country can be quite liberal.
“Christianity teaches we shouldn’t judge.” No, not really. Read the article below which explains why that is a false, out of context, interpretation.
But this myth is used by the left as justification for stifling the ideas, warnings, and dialogue of conservatives, particularly on the internet. Liberals have co-opted Christian misinterpretations of Scripture to censure our opinions and warnings – our “free speech.” Just ask conservative organizations and individuals how their ideas were banned by Facebook, PayPal, and others. It is also mistakenly used by many conservatives to stifle their own otherwise rational opinions and warnings of evil.
Read below to learn how wrong this misinterpretation of “judge not” really is:
I participated in a Bible study on Matthew at a Catholic church the other night. The video-taped teacher quickly glossed over Matthew 7:1 “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Or another translation: “Do not judge, so that you won’t be judged.” He gave a six second reprise of the the common admonition to refrain from judging because we are all sinners and who are we to point out sin in others.
Even the Pope excused his silence about the rampant pedophilia in the Catholic Church by proclaiming “Who am I to judge?” Yikes!
Our post-Christian culture has aborted the real meaning of this verse in favor of abstaining from discernment of right and wrong, good and evil. This goes a long way in explaining the decline of morality in our nation.
This mistaken interpretation was demonstrated by another class member who said “we should never judge an individual because he has his reasons for doing what he is doing that we may not be aware of. We should never judge another’s motives.”
Wrong ! Wrong! Wrong!
This verse needs to be understood in context. Jesus is addressing the problem of hypocrites. Jesus never says “everyone” is a hypocrite. And not everyone is a hypocrite. Even if you believe most people are hypocrites, maybe even ourselves, you probably know some fine people who are not. He is pointing out that those who ARE hypocrites have no credibility when they call attention to the shortcomings of others.
So, is it ok for the “non-hypocrite” to point out the sins of others – or evil in our nation? Absolutely. When we cease being hypocrites – when we take the log out of our own eye - we are then in a position to take the speck out of our brother's eye. (verse 5). As one commentary states: “Believers DO have a responsibility to help one another repent of sins, but only after first dealing with their own serious sins.”
And yes, we are called to judge the character and motive of others. The Holman Bible Dictionary declares: “The interpretation of Matthew 7:1 that Christians should not make value judgments of the behavior of others is shown to be erroneous by multiple commands in Scripture to do exactly that.”
The Bible is replete with examples of a Godly mandate to judge. The prophets of the Old Testament surely judged. Look at Isaiah for example. Look at Matthew 7:15-20, John 7:24, and 1 Timothy 3:10. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:10 called for distinguishing between spirits, evil and otherwise. Paul in Romans doesn’t hold back in judging homosexuality as sin. Are we not to judge the behavior and chosen lifestyle of the homosexual? Or the thief, or the adulterer?
We shouldn’t judge the “motive” of others? Really? A finding of guilt or innocence of someone charged with a crime requires determination of “motive” in addition to “means” and “opportunity.” The business person is wise to judge the motive and character of one he chooses as a business partner. What would become of our culture if…
We eliminated judging character and morality as a couple of the most important criteria for voting for the best candidate?
All judges across the land were prohibited from judging because we are all sinners?
We determined that faithfulness and character in choosing a spouse was off limits?
Judging character and loyalty as the best reasons for choosing our friends was declared unscriptural?
We no longer could judge faith, loyalty, and dedication as the basis for choosing leaders in our churches?
This leads to the biggest cancer of all: Moral relativity. This is the cultural disease where we believe no one’s actions, words, religion, or politics are better or truer than anyone else’s. They are all just as good. They are all just as true. The Muslim on the plane should not be judged because Islam is no better, no worse than Christianity. And that Muslim probably doesn’t know any better, just like the child predator may not know any better. That’s just their beliefs. Their motives should not be judged.
You’ve GOT to be kidding.
Our rampant erroneous interpretation of Matthew 7:1 denies the concept of good and evil, right and wrong, truth and lies. This is the very thought pattern that is leading this nation into moral decay. This is why our mainline religious denominations have accepted abortion, gay ministers, and gay marriage. This is why we are tolerating all manner of vile entertainment and immoral behavior of teenagers and selfish greed among our electorate.
Just as we as a nation must become energy-responsible by adopting the policy of “drill, baby, drill”, we also need to become morally responsible by adopting a personal policy of “judge, baby, judge.” But we can do this only after we do all we can to build our own character so that we are worthy to put into practice the judging God calls us to do.
First they came for to the Alex Jones types and I did not speak out - because I was not an Alex Jones type.
Then they came for the the Trump supporters, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Trump supporter.
Then they came for the Conservatives and Christians, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Conservative or Christian.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.
Who is “they” in this modern version of Niemoller’s quote?
“They” is the troika of Google, Facebook, and Apple: The big three of internet domination – among others. These near-monopolies of internet communications have now gone full bore in defining their own jaded version of “hate speech.” Their version has become: Whatever political or social ideology they don’t agree with. They don’t agree with Alex Jones or his web site “Infowars”, so they ban it. More HERE.
How far will these monopolies go to censor speech they don’t agree with. All the way, apparently.
Is it a coincidence that all of these platforms acted in concert, on the same day, to black out Infowars? Is Infowars correct? Is there a “conspiracy.” Sure looks like it.
And Twitter is just as guilty. An employee, Sarah Jeong, who now works for the New York Times, posted these racist tweets against whites on Twitter:
A black Conservative, Candace Owens, published the same racist rants on Twitter, but substituted the words “Blacks” for “Whites” and her account was locked out while Sarah’s remained. Bias much?
Of course you are familiar with “affirmative action”. This federal program has been used to discriminate against whites in the areas of housing, jobs, and education for several decades. Now we have a new twist on affirmative action: Hate Speech. It is OK for blacks to be racist against whites on social and news media. But not the other way around. That is how affirmative action works.
So, if you are a Conservative, a Christian, a Constitutionalist, a Libertarian, or anyone who disagrees with liberals, progressives, socialists, Communists, or Islam, woe to you if you attempt to express your thoughts on Facebook, Apple, Twitter, of Google social media platforms.
I am familiar with the unbridled, unabashed bias of the media. I have been banned by the far left distorted news network ABC now for several months. I view their 6:30 news only to motivate myself by their incessant anti-Trump bias – to learn how the “other side” operates. And it ain’t pretty.
I can understand uber-liberal media like ABC News (who banished me from posting comments on their news site) trashing Trump’s performance at the Trump/Putin Summit in Helsinki, Finland today.
I can even understand McCain, the chief Republican Trump trasher doing his predictable trashing.
But Newt Gingrich and most other Republicans I do not understand.
First, here is the transcript of what led to the insane media outrage over Trump’s comments. Note the parts that pertain to “who do you believe”:
REPORTER, AP: President Trump, you first. Just now, President Putin denied having anything to do with the election interference in 2016. Every U.S. intelligence agency has concluded that Russia did. My first question for you sir is, who do you believe? My second question is would you now, with the whole world watching, tell President Putin, would you denounce what happened in 2016 and would you want him to never do it again?
TRUMP: So let me just say that we have two thoughts. You have groups that are wondering why the FBI never took the server. Why haven't they taken the server? Why was the FBI told to leave the office of the Democratic National Committee?
I've been wondering that. I've been asking that for months and months and I've been tweeting it out and calling it out on social media. Where is the server? I want to know where is the server and what is the server saying?
With that being said, all I can do is ask the question.
My people came to me, Dan Coates, came to me and some others they said they think it's Russia. I have President Putin. He just said it's not Russia.
I will say this: I don't see any reason why it would be. But I really do want to see the server but I have, I have confidence in both parties.
I really believe that this will probably go on for a while but I don't think it can go on without finding out what happened to the server. What happened to the servers of the Pakistani gentleman that worked on the DNC?
Where are those servers? They're missing. Where are they? What happened to Hillary Clinton's emails? 33,000 emails gone, just gone. I think in Russia they wouldn't be gone so easily.
I think it's a disgrace that we can't get Hillary Clinton's thirty three thousand e-mails.
I have great confidence in my intelligence people but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today and what he did is an incredible offer.
He offered to have the people working on the case come and work with their investigators, with respect to the 12 people. I think that's an incredible offer. Ok? Thank you.
We heard comments from Trump’s foes that he is a traitor, that Putin has something on Trump, that he was badly beaten by Putin, and more.
But what did Republicans say? “Shameful, bizarre.”
And Newt Gingrich tweeted:
President Trump must clarify his statements in Helsinki on our intelligence system and Putin. It is the most serious mistake of his presidency and must be corrected—-immediately.
I have to add, with friends like that, who needs enemies?
And HERE is a response from Ron Paul, one of the very few positive US comments, also courtesy of Russia Today (not reported by mainstream US media).
Thankfully, there are many on Newt’s Twitter site who see the forest for the trees and aren’t as quick to crucify Trump as the Republican military complex Trump-haters are.
People like you and your Fox News cronies just handed the Democrats a huge victory today, and might have cost us the midterms - and for nothing. Trump did nothing wrong. Give yourself a hand
Not agreeing with you this time. OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS NEVER LOOKED AT DNC COMPUTERS. A THIRD PARTY DID. HOW CAN THEY MAKE A DECISION IT WAS RUSSIA. SINCE WHEN DO THEY TAKE THE WORD OF A THIRD PARTY!!
So true. Apples and pears trump was talking about Hillary’s emails not the internet crap get real
What should we make of the Republicans and even those who allegedly support Trump? They are deeply in bed with the “deep state”, the “swamp”, the “military industrial complex”, whatever label you would like to apply to the status quo - those who make their living off of fear and the perpetuation of enemy status of nations.
Trump is truly an outsider, even to his “allies.”
The Muslim loving John Brennan, former CIA Director under traitor Obama, proclaimed Trump a traitor and encouraged his cabinet to resign. Here is what else he posted:
Here is the slippery part, and this is not new. Some anti-Trumpers are (and have been) suggesting or asserting that Trump is not just a naïve stooge of Russia, but he is a Russian plant, and Putin is his handler. HERE is the result of a Google search under “Is Trump Controlled by Russia.” See for yourself.
Before the Summit, here is a headline from New York magazine:
If this piece of rumor and innuendo gains traction, we are in for a messy civil war sooner than anyone has predicted. I can see a reverse of the 50’s and 60’s House Un-American Activities Commission’s hunt for Communists among us. (by the way – Joseph McCarthy was right.)
The liberals and conservative have switched roles. The liberals have historically been the the real Communist sympathizers and enablers. They are now calling the conservatives, namely Trump, the Communist sympathizer and enabler. That’s particularly strange since the United States has journeyed further to the left in the last 50 years to become more Russia-like with our over-involved, over-bearing Federal government, and Russia has made more strides to become significantly freer than before.
Trump recognizes these changes. Most of Washington does not.
It is past time to wake up. But the leftists will do everything in their power, both legal and illegal, both peacefully and violently, to maintain the hostile status quo.
If there is a significant action among the left and their Republican allies to eliminate Trump from office for these or other excuses, all hell will most certainly break loose.
I came across a telling, arrogant statement from an Associated Press (AP) article about the Trump/Kim summit. The context of the following quote is the means of Kim’s flight from North Korea to Singapore…
By prominently showing the Air China jet that flew Kim to Singapore, the reports also made no secret of China’s important role behind the scenes. That might not bode so well for Trump, who has expressed some concern about China’s influence.
Not “it might not bode well for the United States” or “it might not bode well for the American people” but it might not bode well for Trump. The AP depicts this as a Trump versus China thing, caring not at all about the impact on the American people. They portray Trump as being “out there”, alone, without the support of his nation.
The media, in this case the AP, targets Trump, ignoring the fact that he represents the United States and the American people. This might seem like a small nit to pick, but it represents the air of superiority and arrogance of the media and its incessant piling on Trump. These same types of innuendos and slights are legion in most US media – a media that considers itself “world” media; or perhaps more to the point, “god media”, a detached and aloof god at that.
Tommy Robinson, who for 10 years has been the voice of truth about the Islamic threat in Great Britain, recognizes the huge disconnect between “the people” of his nation and the media/ruler class elite who work hard at suppressing the truth. In Britain, both the media and government aggressively suppress the truth about Islam and Muhammad to the extent that they jail people who contradict the government line that “Islam is a benign religion of piece” and that Muhammad was a peace-loving spiritual leader. And the British media, for the most part, go along with these lies. Robinson was jailed several times by British authorities for warning about Islam (often under different pretexts) and has been unjustly jailed again for reporting on a court hearing for yet another Islamic terrorist.
In the following video Elsa (who has interviewed dozens of outspoken truthtellers about Islam) interviews Tommy Robinson where he describes the huge disconnect between “the people” and the British government and media. Together the British government and media suppress the truth of Islam, not giving a damn about the destruction of neighborhoods and communities brought about by their insane immigration policies. This same problem applies in the US.
On May 23rd, I interviewed Tommy Robinson: on people who say it's too late, on himself at 18, on the many lessons he's learned, on some people saying he has the making of a great Prime Minister. Everything looked great. Two days later, on May 25th, the word went out: he had been arrested again. This time, it was for (supposedly) disturbing the peace. He was going about his business of being a reporter - not on the side of those in power.
His arrest brings up thoughts of people like Gandhi and Mandela. Gandhi was arrested over and over. Mandela (unlike Tommy, a true danger) spent 27 years in prison. Both spoke out against those in power, and both demanded change. Tommy has previously spent 22 weeks in solitary confinement - his choice, to increase his chances of staying alive while being held among violent Islamic offenders, including Islamic murderers. Not a good place to be, when you care about, and speak out about, indigenous British girls targeted by Islamic "grooming" gangs.
There are major differences between Gandhi, Mandela and Tommy. Gandhi was a lawyer - well educated. Mandela was the son of a tribal leader - a prince, one might say.
Tommy is working class. In fact, the mainstream media has smeared him for his class background, for instance as a football hooligan.
The largest difference is that Mandela was arrested for his involvement in major terrorism, with massive amounts of bomb-making material; and he never spoke out against this or against terrorism; instead he kept close to the ANC (the group he was tied to), despite the horrific murders done by ANC people in the name of the ANC. Gandhi was also initially involved in violent activities. (For more on Mandela and Gandhi, search out Stefan Molyneux' excellent videos on The Truth about Mandela, and The Truth about Gandhi.)
Unlike Mandela and Gandhi, from the beginning Tommy has always been for peaceful protest.
He has also always been openly and strongly against racism as well as homophobia - against discrimination against individuals.
His protest has always been against an ideology, Islamic ideology - because Islamic ideology, as expressed repeatedly in the Quran, is against Western human rights and freedoms. It upholds, for instance, violence against non-Islamic people (such as vulnerable indigenous British girls). He has also always been against behaviors that violate human rights - like the "grooming" of indigenous British girls by largely Islamic rape gangs, and like the inaction, for decades, of the police, social workers and government officials.
However, while there are differences between Mandela, Gandhi and Tommy, perhaps there is a huge connection. Perhaps we are seeing, once again, a major political leader in the making.
Tommy Robinson, a man with the courage to keep speaking out, and with an amazing capacity to lead.
Perhaps Tommy will be the next great leader of Great Britain. A few key points on the arrest: he was ostensibly arrested for reporting information that was not to be made public, but everything he mentioned was already publicly available. He was standing, so he was informed, where he should not have stood - but police on site had confirmed it was all right, plus it's the same location (steps to court house) used by other reporters, none of whom were arrested. Tommy's solicitor was told by the police he was being released, so no need to come. But Tommy was not released. Instead, within 5 hours, he was sentenced to 13 months in jail.
Within a couple of days, over half a million people worldwide had signed the petition asking for his release. Protests erupted worldwide - Australia, Canada, Israel, France, Germany, as well as Great Britain, of course.
Now, the interview. Tommy talks about: - himself long before any activism,, - his development over the past decade, - his response to people who have given up, - laughing though the situation is desperate, - the huge change that has happened for him over the past 2 years, because he now can feel the massive support he has, - and the suggestion that we might just be seeing a Prime Minister in the making. To sign the petition: https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-free-tommy-robinson To support Tommy: https://tommyrobinson.online
_________________________________
Oh, and here’s one more. World powers attempting to intimidate America, as America sits firmly, contentedly…
