A couple things I saw recently struck me with some force. Once was some weird Church out there – used to be Christian, claims to remain so…but, they’re lying very badly – which put up a Garden of Eden picture with same sex couples. Other thing was this nitwit Never Trumper whom I used to respect yammering on about how True Conservatives don’t want Conservative judges because that might overturn Roe. This, plus a few other things, got me wondering: what are the limits of tolerance? That is, in an admittedly pluralist Republic, just how much difference can there be before the whole thing comes crashing down?
I think we’d all agree that, by and large, we don’t care what goes on in San Francisco. Our only real complaint, to this point, has been that San Franciscans seem to care very much what we do and want to force us to be like them. Our theory has been that we can beat them back and they can have their multi-gendered otherkin SJW San Francisco while we have, well, sanity; everyone is happy. But, would we really be? Would they?
I strongly doubt they would – Crusaders out to free the Holy Land would envy the zeal with which our SJW Left pursues it’s enemies. They can’t leave well enough alone – they seem to have a built-in need to harass, hector and bully everyone. When they can’t find out an outright enemy to pester, they simply turn upon one of their own. It is just the way they are – and only the power of God can possibly convert them. We can’t. And even someone officially not SJW Left – like the Never Trumper mentioned above – still revealed a desire to impose…for all his talk about small government, the last thing he wants is a small government out there looking after itself. That is, he doesn’t want you and me getting together to decide what we want in our little corner of the world. Nope: we all have to be the same.
How are we supposed to live with people like that? Also, would we be wise to even try? How smart am I if I commit to the absolute defense of some nutcase “Church” which puts up pictures deliberately to insult me? If I commit to defend people who are then free to undermine my ability to govern myself? We know, with certainty, that a free society will generally produce the best results because when people are able to dare and to dream, they will resolve problems which have bedeviled humanity for ages. So, we know we must have freedom – but does this include tolerating the freedom to destroy?
I’m really just asking the question here. I don’t know the answer. I am hopeful that a bit of debate about it might produce some point I’m missing or enlighten some dark patch in my mind. But as it stands right now, I’m really puzzled as to whether or not we can, as we are, survive as a nation…and whether or not we should.
Blogs For Victory 
I am noticing more and more evil taking place. The day after Thanksgiving, just a few miles from where I live, a young man and his wife were shot and killed, and their little boy was them when they were shot. All over a hunting lease. I really don’t know the exact specifics, because I wasn’t there, I don’t believe a hunting lease is a reason to shoot a man and his wife with a young son. Can you imagine the pain that little boy will have to endure as he processes that his father and mother were suddenly taken out of this world? I just can’t imagine.
Then like you were saying about San Francisco, I mean, who in their right mind would want to live there? Or Los Angeles? Or Seattle? Or Portland? All ran by far-left communist liberals.
Then there is the churches , who practice ungodly secular abominations. Letting homosexuals into the clergy, into pastoral positions, the ones God will condemn to everlasting fire.
Things that one would never in their wildest dreams would think could happen to the United States 30 years ago. You know Bible speaks about blasphemers entering the churches in 2 Thessalonians 2 the son of destruction who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.
I think we have entered that time, and we’re very near to that time when Christ appears on the scene, by whom the enemy will be destroyed by the appearance of His coming.
Be ready! That’s what Dad tells me all the time. Be ready! You know I think all believers have the same desire to see their loved ones in heaven. But regardless, if we are there, the ones who didn’t make it is not going to matter to us, because heaven is a place separated by a huge gulf/expanse from the torture anxiety and sadness of hell. And in heaven there is no murder, no killing, no jealousy, no bitterness, no greed, no sorrow, no pain, none of those things … but a place of forever free and happy.
Well, as to that, Our Lord said we simply won’t know – but we won’t mistake it when it happens. So, listen to Dad: be ready!
How are we supposed to live with people like that? Also, would we be wise to even try?
The answers are … not sure, and hell no.
Always stand firm in Faith and remember the louder the authoritarian voices get, the closer we are to victory. We are witnessing a very vocal and totalitarian movement who got their footing under Obama, grew in numbers out of anger of losing an election, funded by George Soros, and encouraged by the media and Democrats, but there is no anchor to this movement so once the funding and encouragement stop, the movement evaporates. These people do not have any moral compass, or long held beliefs or principles for which they live their life by. They are narcissistic to the core and are simply motivated by hate and rage and the desire to lash out at the “others” as Amazona always points out. In other words, they have become useful idiots.
Their voices will only get louder and more desperate as Nov. 2020 gets closer but I think once the landslide reelection of Trump is complete, the movement will shrink and be relegated to the political sidelines right alongside the “white supremacists” who were at one time not too long ago a political movement in the same vain. They are the same people just a different side of the coin.
I’ll say they believe in something – and some of them quite strongly. It is just that they don’t know what they believe – they get it second hand and accept it merely because those whom they think they are supposed to respect hand it to them: politicians, corporate bosses, media people, corrupt priests and pastors.
I see anger, of course, in the masses of Useful Idiots being herded by their Leftist masters, but at the top I see fear as they realize a President Trump seems to be focused on unwinding the elaborate web of connected strands of power they have worked for so long to create, and seems to have a pretty good idea of how to do this.
Donald Trump brought with him a vast skill set, due to his work with unions, mob bosses and international governments. His business efforts put him in contact with, in conflict with, and in negotiations with, people and agencies and governments to an extent I don’t think anyone else can match. And in the process of doing this, he learned a lot about where the bodies are buried, who put them there and why, and how things work. He probably has a deeper understanding of not just what strings are being pulled to make things happen but who is pulling them, as well as a deep and instinctive grasp of the layers of power behind what we see on the surface. So he is a great danger to the Left.
The little attention paid to his Executive Orders cutting the size of some federal agencies talked as if this was a cost-cutting measure, but I always saw it as a way to deprive the Left of much of its support and power. He knew what Obama was up to when he put so many of his top aides in top agency positions, he understood the damage they could do, and he set about taking them out of those positions. I am sure this has totally freaked out the Left. They are goading their Useful Idiots, their marchers and mobs and howlers, to express rage and hatred, but I think this is all based on their fear.
Much like the word “disenfranchised”, which technically means losing the right to vote, has been distorted to mean losing any right, and even more degraded to mean any negative the Left wants to attach to it, the phrase “existential threat” has been watered down to mean anything the Left doesn’t like. But it really means a threat to the very EXISTENCE of something. Trump is, therefore, a true existential threat to the growing power and scope of Leftism in this country, because his goal is to destroy it. His background and perceptive skills mean he knows how the Left has intertwined itself in every aspect, in every level, of our government and he wants to dig out those embedded agents and actors.
Donald Trump brought with him a vast skill set, due to his work with unions, mob bosses and international governments. His business efforts put him in contact with, in conflict with, and in negotiations with, people and agencies and governments to an extent I don’t think anyone else can match.
I think you’re 100% correct on that … a unique skill set coupled with a deep appreciation and love of this country. Trump also has many contacts with, and much experience with foreign countries having dealt with government agencies and businessman worldwide …. he was no stranger when he entered the White House, and I think that terrified some people. Obviously.
So Kamala Harris is out. I sure didn’t see that coming /sarc. Other than being a complete opportunist, she was a horrible candidate with no clear message but as I listen to MSNBC wrangle their minds over it I am realizing what is one of the bigger problem amongst the progressive ranks. No one is ever held accountable and no one fails. The propagandists on MSNBC are bemoaning the news of Kamala’s departure describing her as someone who “checks all the boxes” (I love that one), and who ran a great campaign. And of course Al Sharpton was visibly upset lecturing the others that there can not be a Democrat debate stage without a black person. No kidding. But back to point, if no one fails or is held accountable in the media or in Democrat circles then you end up with representatives like Jerry Nadler and AOC and talking heads like Nicole Wallace and Joe Scarborough. The Democrat party and the media may be the only two organizations in America where people can fail upwards. And yes Valerie Jarrett fits that to the tee.
I may be a bit of an outlier WRT tolerance, simply because of where I live and who I associate with. I simply don’t associate with people who do things that I find repugnant. That includes both personal habits like drinking just to get drunk, committing adultery (and boasting about it), just cheating and lying in general as well as openly espousing altering or destroying the basic moral, ethical and economic foundations upon which this country was founded.
That said, how do I justify voting for Trump? You can bet if he had committed any sexual indiscretions (like sodomizing a 21-year-old intern with a cigar in the Oval Office) or any other ethical or moral lapses, they’d be on the front page of the NYT, above the fold as well as 24/7 on CNN and MSNBC. The fact that that is not the case leads me to the conclusion, like Amazona, that he’s gone through somewhat of an epiphany since winning the presidency. I believe in second chances, and I think he’s earned it. Plus, of course, he’s implementing policies that Republican presidents have been promising but not delivering on for most of my adult life.
My view is that even if Trump is guilty of all the immoralities charged against him, they are still in the nature of normal sins engaged in by a normal sinner – who also has access to buckets of money. Trump isn’t out there creating a philosophy which calls sins good – and that is the huge difference.
On Twitter over the past few days – mostly among Catholic Twitter – there’s been this debate about denying communion. It was sparked by the refusal of a parish priest to dispense communion to a parishoner. She’s a judge – and lesbian and “married” and apparently would be sitting in the pews wearing signs indicating her disagreement with Catholic teaching. The usual suspects on the Left – including, naturally, some Catholic priests – are in an uproar over this. They are couching their criticism in terms of “who are you to judge?”, but the underlying reality is that they approve of the judge’s actions…and want to force us to provide at least silent consent. It isn’t that they want us to merely tolerate, they want us to agree. And therein lies the problem – not that she’s sinning (we all do that, to one degree or another) but that they want to use her as a means of forcing us to say that sin is good.
And this works out, for me, as another example of why Trump is the moral superior of his critics…even the regular church-going, 62 year member of the parish judge who might not have committed adultery even once in her life…because Trump doesn’t promote evil; that’s the difference. And can we live in a society where people promote evil? For goodness sake, the lady could become Episcopalian tomorrow and get all the communion she wants. She can’t possibly believe – as Catholics are supposed to – that the Sacrament is the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ. To her, its just got to be a bit of bread; if she thought otherwise, she never would have entered into a lesbian “marriage”. So, what does it matter to her where she gets her Sunday cracker? Why does she feel impelled to directly defy and insult what she knows Catholics believe? Because she’s evil – and wants us to support her in the evil. And I’m supposed to tolerate this? To so much as allow my time to be used up talking about someone who is merely trying to destroy my faith?
I caught just a few minutes of an interview Sunday night with Mike Lindell, of “My Pillow” fame. Mark Levin was interviewing him, and even from the little I saw Mike is open about a sordid past of drug use and immoral behavior, but he has found God and has completely changed his life.
We can go all the way back to Saul on the road to Damascus to find examples of people who have, for whatever reason, looked at themselves and said “I don’t want to be that person any more”. I find it easy to understand that a man who has put his business success above everything else can reach a point where he thinks to himself that he doesn’t need any more money, he has achieved the goals he has set for himself, he has sinned and hurt people along the way, and it is time to become a different person.
I have heard over and over again that for many if not most people who have achieved great financial success they no longer think of money as something that allows them to own stuff, or even as a means of control, but more as a way of keeping score of how good they are at what they do. So what if a man gets to that point and decides that he wants to do different things, and the ways of keeping score will not be reflected in his bank account or his asset list but in changes to the world he lives in?
When I look at the things I know about the old Donald Trump, I don’t see willful hurting of others. What I see is indifference to how people would be hurt as he pursued his goals of the moment. That may seem like a distinction without being a difference, but I think it matters—while indifference to pain one causes others is a horrible thing, it is still not as bad as willful malice and hurting people for the sake of feeling powerful, or any other reason for imposing ones’ will on others in a way that causes pain and suffering. The end results of indifference-caused damage and purposely inflicted damage may be equal, but I contend that the character of the person responsible is less malignant in the person who simply charged ahead in pursuit of a goal without caring who got hurt than in the person who set out to hurt someone—-and more easily changed, and more easily forgiven. The person killed by a drunk driver is just as dead as the victim of a serial torturer and killer, yet the first was due to indifference to the damage caused by indulgence in something and the second was willful imposition of pain and death for its own sake.
Shouldn’t she be in school hahahahahaha
Greta Thunberg arrives in Portugal after completing her three-week catamaran voyage across the Atlantic, as the eco-activist prepares to speak at climate change summit in Madrid
I’m intolerant of idiots like her.
Greta was a huge over reach by the climate hysterics and I think it diminishes their cause, primarily because a lot of people, including myself, consider this to be child abuse.
She is simply the product of a brainwashed education, a temporary useful puppet unwilling or unable to examine the truth in its entirety. I’ve little doubt that she actually believes in what she pushes, which is reinforced by those who prop her up. The left will fill her with adoration and a false sense of noble purpose while she is relevant to their cause, then discard her when she’s of little use. People like her stand on a house of cards using lies & deceit, often unaware of those lies, to sway others as gullible as she. Like many others, her position is based on emotional desire for good without understand the fallacy of what she advocates. When forced to defend her positions against direct questioning or debate she’ll inevitably fall back to false data, lies or claims of an evil, uncaring opposition.
While I have little use for people like her as they live a deluded life, I pray they see the light to fulfill whatever purpose God has for them. Though the number may be small, there are people who were once poster children of the left, who’ve made dramatic changes in their stance for the good. That change can occur somewhat instantaneous or after a duration of doubt and questions. Norma Rae is an example. The difficult part is, how do we interact with someone who ideology is adamantly opposed to what we believe to be as moral living for the greater good of mankind? The kindness extended by those who pray at abortion clinics have helped many people change their decision to proceed, and in some cases helped those very people become strong advocates for the pro-life cause. That same path would certainly not work for dictators who’s only purpose is power and the destruction of anything that stands in their way.
Though it certainly may happen, I’m not waiting or counting on some decisive miracle from God to set things right. In most of history He has been shown to work patiently through others to spread His truth. I pray for His continued patience and help us know when to extend compassion and when to take arms. I think anyone who’s been paying attention know that “things” – tensions, opposition, lies, deceit, confrontation, evil, etc… are escalating and becoming more prevalent and bolder. That many people talk of the possibility of another civil war should make this rather obvious. But in many ways I’m encouraged far more than I was a few years ago. I see God’s hand at work in so many things, both little and big, that I find great comfort in trusting Him. ”Be ready” as Jeremiah mentions is not call to hunker down waiting for the explosion, but a call to live life as God intended.
Utilizing a child like a human shield for an issue is disgusting.
Utilizing a child like a human shield for an issue is disgusting.
Yet we are seeing it writ large, as the Left is actively promoting “gender fluidity” as well as terrifying our children with claims they will not have futures in a dying world. Both of these movements are part of the overall Leftist efforts to destabilize our society, splinter it into conflicting fragments, destroy personal identity (so it can become a State identity) and achieve total control.
When you get right down to it, there isn’t much difference between this and radical Islamists using children as shields.
You know Mark, there’s a lot of people in the Conservative movement that aren’t even conservatives at all. They believe that as long as you support Trump, the underlying principles that are the building blocks of conservatism don’t matter. In other words, they are liberals disguised as “conservatives.” These are the people, Mark, that are out to divide Conservatives by putting labels on Conservatives, such as “fiscal” conservatives and “social” conservatives. We don’t need that in the Conservative movement. We need to purge the party of this two-factor authentication whooey by the wolves in the party, and stand on the traditional Conservative definition of what the Republican party is about.
But before we can unite on anything, we have to purge the party, of people like Romney for starters.
We gotta do this, we gotta get back to the basics the traditional conservative that made this country into the mightiest nation on planet earth.
Jeremiah, what these aptly-named “two-factor authentication” people are doing is mingling Identity Politics with real politics. And this happens on both sides of the aisle.
While it is true that most political conservatives also happen to hold traditional religious and cultural values, which are also conservative in a different way as they represent a reluctance to accept dilution or distortion of those values, the use of the word to imply a political point of view can be misleading. I think we have gotten ourselves all tangled up in semantics.
“Conservative” in a purely political sense simply means believing that the United States must be governed under a system in which the federal government is severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most authority left to the states or to the people. This is the core of the old concept of the GOP as being the “big tent” party, with room for people of widely diverse personal opinions and beliefs but politically united in a conviction of how the nation should be governed and where the authority to vote on those policies should lie.
When people started to narrow the definition to include only people who also shared similar religious or cultural belief systems, the party started to shrink, as people were told “if you don’t think the way I do about everything you aren’t welcome in our party and you’re not a REAL conservative”. And this opened the door to concepts like what you discuss, the sense that one can be “A” conservative in one area but not another.
I contend that one is A conservative based on the purely political definition I offer, above, as long as he agrees that his preferences for spending, etc. are settled according to the Constitution and that the Constitution cannot be expanded or modified to accommodate personal preferences or outcomes. But the definition should apply only to how and where he thinks those differences can be adjudicated, not to what they are.
In other words, I think that someone could theoretically be conservative but still vote for the Dem overreach and insanity in California if he agrees that these policies are not allowed to the federal government but only to the states, just as a homosexual can be a conservative, or someone who thinks abortion is nothing more or less than a reproductive decision as long as he agrees it cannot be a federal matter but decided at the state level. In that first example, the Californian would vote for a Republican for president, to try to maintain the restrictions on federal size, scope and power, and then also vote Dem in his state because he has strong feelings about policies that are outside federal authority.
And I think that for the most part “people who support Trump” do so because of his allegiance to Constitutional governance, while the alleged conservatives who oppose him are really just Identity Conservatives who base their opinions on emotional reactions to personality, or other things that have nothing to do with actual governance. I think one thing that is happening within the Republican Party is a sorting-out of who is a Republican because of commitment to the Constitution and who claims that label for other reasons.
It’s only funny because it could be true
https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/12/03/hilarious-twitter-thread-year-shows-social-media-reacts-anything-trump/
That’s hilarious!
Not only is our media obsessed with Trump … the entire world is:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7753821/Justin-Trudeau-Emmanuel-Macron-Boris-Johnson-caught-appearing-gossip-Trump.html
So Kamala Harris was “treated badly by the press” ?? I must have missed that segment.
NICOLLE WALLACE: Rev, you are on the show all the time. I don’t often hear you sound this angry. Was she treated badly by the DNC. Was she treated badly by the press?
Al SHARPTON: I think she was definitely treated badly by the press. I’ve never seen a candidate taken apart the way she was in the last several days. Yes, there are organizational problems. Yes, there were financial problems. But you have people on that debate stage with no organization at all and the press is not writing about it.
But you have people on that debate stage with no organization at all and the press is not writing about it.
Well, the first half of that statement is definitely true. In fact, “organization” is not all they’re lacking. The fact is, most of the people on the stage are not likable — but they’re more likable than Kamala Harris.
Rush is making a great point this afternoon about how the focus-grouped narrative for impeachment has evolved from collusion to obstruction of justice to quid pro quo to bribery to extortion to abuse of power. Nothing they do is gaining any traction with the average American. Pretty funny if you stop to think about it.
This whole thing is a complete joke. But I just realized something …. aren’t the Democrats using their positions to try and effect the outcome of the 2020 election?
I think that was the original plan, but the result is going to be a self-inflicted wound. Ya gotta love it when a plan comes together like that.
Yes, the Dems are trying to use this to influence the next election. The cost of this charade should be considered a donation to the DNC.
And basically anything a president does which is successful could be taken as an effort to influence his reelection chances.
Interesting take from a Democrat law professor
“As I have previously written, such misuses of impeachment would convert our process into a type of no-confidence vote of Parliament. Impeachment has become an impulse buy item in our raging political environment.”
And the response from the Left to Turley’s comments is wholly predictable.
They want him punished and they want him silenced. emphasis mine
Because Professor Turley did not advocate for Trump’s immediate removal by day’s end on Wednesday, the left responded the usual way they respond when presented with opposing viewpoints. They threatened Turley and called up George Washington University Law School to demand that the school immediately fire the professor.
Turley describes the left’s reaction to his testimony in an article he wrote for The Hill. “My call for greater civility and dialogue may have been the least successful argument I made to the committee,” Turley lamented. “Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with threatening messages and demands that I be fired from George Washington University for arguing that, while a case for impeachment can be made, it has not been made on this record.”
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2019/12/05/leftists-want-professor-turley-fired-for-urging-caution-in-democrat-led-impeachme-n2557581
He said “a case for impeachment can be made” but that was not enough for the howling mob—they demanded that he support this effort, now. Or pay the price for failing to toe the line. He doesn’t like Trump, he didn’t vote for Trump, he could even see some reason, somewhere, for impeaching Trump (though he hasn’t said what) and he is not defending Trump. He merely pointed out that the Dem emperor has no clothes (a horrifying mental image given that the new Dem emperor is Nadler) and the Thought Police responded to a Thought Crime, of not supporting them.