Osteen, Anger, Hell, Homosexuality

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3059879/posts

Somebody posted the linked on FB and I read through it. It is full of discomfort for me -- and as a Christian, I think discomfort is often a good, or at least necessary thing.

First of all, my inclination is to dislike Osteen. He is a TV minister, a class that evokes the same sort of visceral reaction as "politician, used car salesman, etc". Being a Christian means one should ALWAYS feel at least uncomfortable about those reactions. We know we are supposed to LOVE even our ENEMIES.

The writer of the column doesn't get my vote either though -- very much "works righteousness", "holier than thou", "Scribes and Pharisee's", judgmental, etc I have a hard time understanding how any Christian can feel comfortable making the kinds of harsh judgements he is making.

I could go have a long scriptural "verse off" with some of the verses he quotes, but I don't feel like that today, nor do I feel "led" that way.  I went and visited my Dad yesterday and got to hear an MPR discussion about "political mixed marriages" that made "acceptance of homosexuality" one of those "we can't associate with people who fail that test!"

I overeat. I was sick over the weekend, so I've been trying to use that impetus to cut back AGAIN. Overeating is gluttony. Gluttony is sin, and it is just as bad as homosexuality. Do I "feel" that way? No, I find homosexuality especially yucky, not my temptation, but there are plenty of other sins that ARE tempting. Overeating is a nice clear not yucky, not embarrassing one to talk about.

Sexual sins are especially difficult sins. It is my firm belief that at our core we all know that "love, marriage, children,  family, extended family, community" are the human center of life. For those that are believers, God demands that we put HIM at the center of our lives -- which changes the focus of life.

Without (1) the sexual union of one man and one woman, none of us would be here. We also know that we will ultimately (2) face death, either alone or (3)with Jesus holding our hand. EVERYONE that is sane agrees with 1 and 2. Many, maybe even most, will try to deny or avoid thought about 2, but it's there.  We also have no choice on 1 and 2. We are here, we were born -- so we will die, end of story.

All human kind is in this boat. I find the fact there is not more love on the planet to be enough to prove the existence of Satan / evil on it's own! We are all short timers in a boat we did not choose to be in, and we KNOW that it ends in death! Why not love others in our shared situation?

In listening to the NPR show, reading this article  and dealing with atheists over the years, I'm convinced that the desire to judge others as being "less than ourselves" is an absolute hallmark of human nature. When Christ tells us to "love our enemies", he is giving us a command that is impossible for humans to follow -- like "love God with ALL your heart". The fact he would give such a command is proof that he is more than human. Humans have a hard time even conceiving of such things when they hear them, let alont think them up!

Have you ever met an atheist who even gives a HINT of loving their enemies? They are almost always pretty angry at those that disagree with them -- religious people, very much so! They are certain they are completely justified in their anger -- "righteous" even!

We all love ourselves. Even if we hate ourselves at times, it is always someone else's fault -- our parents, someone who abused us somehow, the political system, bad genetics (our parents again), racism, the system, ... maybe even God, sometimes even if we claim we don't believe he exists. We ended up "marooned" here with no way out but death unless we "give in" and subscribe to the "foolish idea" that there is a God and a potential for eternal life with him.

But many CAN'T accept that, because that comes with HELL, which is "immoral" according to  "our morality" since WE are  better judges of morality than the "certainly must be imagined" God who would conceive of such a terrible thing as eternal punishment.

I believe that accepting the moral authority that God has a RIGHT to actually judge us is one of those acts of humility that comes very very hard to many. I wrote on that some here. It is really a very mild humility asked of us compared that of almighty God being willing to suffer even unto death for our sin!

But in the meantime,  our natural desire is to feel better about ourselves by putting labels on some other groups and calling them "untouchables", "deploreables", ... "the evil".  If you go about 38min into the MPR piece (nearly the end), they finally get down to brass tacks -- "we can't be around people who are homophobic, racist, islamophobic or sexist ... these are non-negotiable". Let's ignore the fact that believers in Islam are "homophobic and sexist" by the MPR definition for the moment, we humans are also inescapably inconsistent. Humans are extremely limited beings.

Christ's forgiveness has no limits. I agree with Osteen that there will be people that have practiced homosexuality in heaven, and they will have sought forgiveness for their sin in this life. I pray fervently that there will be recovering gluttons in heaven as well as those fighting the sin of judging others in heaven, and especially those that have lusted after women in their hearts  -- and that I will be among them. Homosexual acts are sin, not homosexual desires, exactly like man or woman desiring a partner not their spouse. Sin is sin -- without Christ, it is like life, always terminal.

This somewhat long discussion for me is summarized by 1 John 1:8 " If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the TRUTH is not in us."

Christ is the Truth. Homosexuality is a sin, and it is not the unforgivable sin. Drinking to excess is a sin and alcoholics have a compulsion to drink to excess -- we don't tell them "go ahead and drink or you are not being true to your nature". Is it really possible to look at the wreckage of alcoholism, drug addiction, homosexuality, transgenderism and abortion and still say "these are not sin"?

Since ALL have sinned -- and even worse, struggle with sin each day, listing sins ought give no Christian comfort just because they can list a  group which happens not to tempt them personally. Any practicing Christian MUST have no problem pointing to a list which DOES NOT make them comfortable! Being a practicing Christian REQUIRES constant admission of our sinfulness!

Comfort, pleasure, ease ... Christians are NOT to seek these, but rather to serve the Lord!

For me, this analysis makes it clear why those without Christ are pretty much forced by human nature  to establish their own Secular Humanist religion with it's own "mortal sins" (homophobia, racism, etc above), and as the MPR program shows, they have done so, and it includes even "shunning" like the Amish.  I think Sapiens does a good job of covering the secular religion compulsion.

Matt 6:33  "But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." We are in what to human eyes appears to be a hopeless situation, however ...

Matt 19:26  "Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Hood Billionaire Brotha Bangle Beeps BO

Rapper Rick Ross's Ankle Monitor Goes Off During Minorty Youth Empowerment Program at White House - Breitbart:

Nothing says BO Whitehouse like a "Brotha Bangle" beeping in the background!

Bringing the role models of the BO world to our nations first house!

'via Blog this'

Michelle Obama's Derriere

Michelle Obama's Derriere : snopes.com:

This meme has popped up enough on the web that I went to check Snopes. The picture is photoshopped, but the women are who they are labeled. Left to Right, Princess Letizia of Spain, French first lady Carla Bruni, and Mooch Obama.

The press enjoyed making fun of Ben Carson's wife's appearance. They naturally didn't enjoy Trump doing a comparison between his wife and Cruz's. So it goes.

The US sheep generally need to be fed a steady diet of propaganda that paints Europeans as "sophisticated, intelligent, discerning, etc" and at least most of the US, certainly the Red State swine, as well, swine.

Strangely, one of the "sophisticated, intelligent, discerning" things those wonderful Europeans do is "compare wives physical features".

Comparing the physical attractiveness and fashion style of the spouses of national leaders is common fodder for gossip magazines and newspaper columns, particularly in Europe.

I think we all knew that. The French didn't love Jackie Kennedy because of her great mind. Interestingly, one of the former lovers of Carla Bruni is supposed to be Donald Trump -- along with Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton and many others. Let's face it, once "virtue" is out, it is OUT!

We can be thankful at least that there is no chance of a "Pippa Incident" breaking the internet when Mooch walks down the street! It is also gratifying to know she is probably able to save valuable personal time by not lecturing the first ladies of Spain or France on their diet or exercise regime! (American school children are not so lucky!).

Is it "tacky" to compare how wives look? Sure, but it certainly is done -- apparently more in Europe, but plenty here as well. Is it "tacky" to make fun of NJ Gov Chris Christie's weight in a country where men and women are asserted to be equal? "Standards" are a very funny thing in a nation where there are no standards ... Outside of what THE PARTY DEMANDS of course, Heil BO and goose-step to the lavatory you feel most comfortable in today!

I'm actually glad that the press ISN'T making a bunch of sport of Mooch vs the "Ferrari's". It is hard to imagine if there was an R first lady who forced little kids to have sawdust and gruel for lunch to "keep their weight down" that there MIGHT not be a couple teensy weeny and RARE (oh so rare!) jokes don't you think?

Nah, we have an unbiased press and Europeans are just so mature and sophisticated.


'via Blog this'

Criminalizing Politics (Frontpage)

The Criminalization of Political Activism on the Right | Frontpage Mag:



I've covered this a lot, but every once in awhile I like to post something showing that I'm not the ONLY loon thinking these things!

"What Obama and his party are doing is not Nixonian. Nixon never went this far. Neither did McCarthy. The closest parallels can be found in places like Venezuela or Iran. When the justice system is treated like the regime's secret police, then the Republic is in peril. When the authorities make a special effort to crack down on political opponents, then democratic elections become a mere technicality.

The law is not merely procedural. It is also moral. A corrupt system can selectively use the law to destroy the political opposition. The Democratic Party has begun traveling down that dark road."

'via Blog this'

TV Cesspool

http://nypost.com/2016/04/10/in-a-race-to-outshock-the-viewer-quality-shows-become-ever-more-immoral/

I don't watch very much TV ... just not that interested. I don't consider myself a "prude" -- I managed to make it through "Pulp Fiction". Probably the weirdest thing I ever watched was "Sin City" because I heard so much about how "brilliant and innovative" it was and it had Bruce Willis in it. I guess it's as "shocking" as anything here, but it's not on TV:

Thursday night, on ABC’s “Scandal,” Olivia Pope, the protagonist — long established in the show’s vernacular as a “white hat,” or good guy — beat a wheelchair-bound stroke victim to death by pulping his face with an aluminum chair. 

It was a lengthy scene, and even for a Shonda Rhimes soap that bills itself weekly on “OMG twists” — gruesome scenes of torture and dismemberment, politically expedient murders and illegitimate war, rape, kidnapping, blackmail, and one interminable scene where an imprisoned terrorist chewed through her own wrist to escape — this one was morally and artistically bankrupt.

There is a litany of such things in the article and this is the NY Post ... AFAIK, not exactly a "bastion of puritanism". They close with this observation:

“At a certain point, as always happens in Hollywood or culture in general, a set of superficial things come to stand in for quality: sex, violence, moral complication,” says Martin. “When done well, it’s the highest form of art. If it’s done poorly, and if that’s all you’ve got — the idea that quality is tied to immorality — you enter the realm of the absurd.”

"As always happens in Hollywood or culture in general"? So did Socialist Germany get into "absurd" on the first million Jews, or did it take a few? Did we get there on the first 10 million legally aborted babies, or are we there now at 60 million? Or maybe we have to double it.

"Immorality"? As near as I can tell currently from the culture that would be "Not applauding when an obvious male in a wig and a dress follows your 8 year old granddaughter unaccompanied into the ladies bathroom at the park".

"Morality" is applauding.

"Absurd"? What the hell does "absurd" mean these days?

They seem to think it will "cycle back" and evil will no longer be good and the guys in the white hats will be cheered once again. Perhaps my prayers will be answered.

No Mules Allowed

National Review:

I think Jonah went all "Pharisee" relative to Trump, so I have been miffed -- but I still love him. Usually he is truly "above the issues" in a religious / philosophical sense, not the narcissistic sense of BO -- I believe what our funders intended was for Americans to LIVE and spend most of their mental energy "above politics" in that religious / philosophical sense -- opposing teams in the NFL, not Shia and Sunni seeking to exterminate the other.

This paragraph especially hit me  (it is in reference to the Billy C defense of his crime bill and spat with BLM):

One fun consequence of all this is that Bill very well could turn out to be a liability for Hillary, which would be kind of hilarious given that Hillary would be just another left-wing activist lawyer were it not for her husband. She rode her Arkansas mule all of the way to the White House gates only to see the sign reading, “No Mules Allowed.”

I stand in awe of how much and how well Goldberg writes -- I liked this as well:

There’s a natural human tendency to think that because you can’t stand the other guy -- or gal -- he or she must therefore be your ideological opposite. The Brown Shirts and Red Shirts weren’t philosophical antipodes, they were Coke and Pepsi fighting for the same slice of the radical market by changing their recipes ever so slightly. Bill Clinton, as president, wasn’t that left-wing and Richard Nixon wasn’t that right-wing. But their enemies started from the assumption that any political opponent we hate this much must have a wholly different ideology from us. And when your enemies hate someone on your “side,” that causes you to embrace your guy even more.

My theory is that when we had RELIGION that was a real actual part of life, if the person you hated was in the church, you were absolutely required to at least fake that you didn't hate them -- and for the good of your soul, even ACTUALLY love them! Even if they were your ENEMY you were admonished to do the same!

We could have a few "ideologies" running around in our heads, but we KNEW that "this is ideology and THIS is RELIGION" -- one is temporal, one is eternal, we don't mix them up because that would be HERESY and that is VERY BAD.

Today,  "The Party" (TP-D) is the combination church/state. It's "encyclicals" -- sometimes actual "law", created lawfully by Congress, but increasingly "fiat" from the executive, some alphabet bureaucracy or the SCOTUS reading "penumbras"; increasingly MUST be obeyed by those who seek to maintain the good graces and favor of TP.  Thus "men in the women's bathroom" becomes a totem that must be bowed and scraped to by ALL. Gay "marriage" must not be just tolerated, it must be CELEBRATED by all -- or jobs will be lost, travel will be cut off, nay,  the infidels who disagree will be banished and purged from the Holy Church of TP!

On the right there is no such power as TP currently. The "Republican Party" is ill organized and has extremely poor "coordination" with the media that calls itself "conservative". Indeed, TP has declared it "illegal" for there to be "coordination" on the right, and in fact has declared that if so accused they are "guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent" in violation of UN human rights law!

Thus we have had "purity" issues for a LONG time as Jonah points out. Hoover, Nixon, W ... he could go MUCH farther. Even the sainted Reagan was far less doctrinaire than a BO on the left. The little history of W the "arch conservative" is painfully funny. I actually think LESS purity is better in this case -- as long as we don't lose track of who we are.

The whole thing is worth a read -- his left/right discussion is worth a refresher. If you haven't read mine on that I think it is decent as well.

'via Blog this'

SCOTUS "Fails To Act" Gambit

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/433888/diskant-gobsmacking-stupidity?7QwhKPQ3FGF62LZi.01

I'm not going to spend any time on this other than to keep track of the insanity if it becomes more widely discussed. We already know that when truth, logic, morality, law, etc are all "questionable", there are NO LIMITS!

Liberals likely feel like conservatives did when Bork was rejected, BO was elected (twice!) and a thousand other little constant things like (unbelievably) a "new" calumny of Clarence Thomas!

The difference is that conservatives have to live with disappointment constantly, liberals believe they are entitled to always have things their way!

In his op-ed, Diskant—who is a lawyer with distinguished credentials—contends that the Senate can be deemed to have waived its “advice and consent” role on a Supreme Court nomination if it “fails to act” on the nomination within a “reasonable” time—and that President Obama could therefore proceed to appoint Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court without the Senate’s ever having confirmed the Garland nomination . (Or, to be more precise, Diskant, in an apparent effort to preserve his professional credibility, claims that “it is possible to read” the Appointments Clause that way.)

Deep Personal Beliefs, Liberal Logic

This one pretty much summarizes "liberal logic".

This one might be the lasting legacy of BO -- for some strange reason it involves bathrooms.

BS Calls Hildebeast "Racist"

Bernie Sanders calls out Hillary Clinton for "racist" language.:

The Sanders comment came when NY1 host and debate moderator Errol Louis asked Sanders why he had criticized Bill Clinton for defending his wife when confronted by protesters holding a sign that said “Black people are not super predators”—a term Hillary Clinton used in 1996 while campaigning for her husband and his criminal justice policies. “Because it was a racist term and everybody knew it was a racist term,” Sanders responded to applause.

The cool thing about being a Democrat though is that even messing around with the "racist" term is merely a matter of "interest". Let's face it, the MSM knows that those D's are all "really good people"!

'via Blog this'

Zero to One, Peter Thiel

http://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460935376&sr=1-1&keywords=zero+to+one+peter+thiel

A book that FAR exceeds it's promise. It has a LOT of great experiential documentation on startups, but the astute observations on attitudes around the world, misconceptions people have and just plain pithy contrarian wisdom is what really sets it apart. Thiel "failed" to get a SCOTUS clerkship (barely) and thus ended up founding PayPal which merged with Elon Musk's X.com to become a very successful business -- many good stories about how those things happened.

First the title -- Doing more of what we already know takes us from 1 to N, creating something new takes us from 0 to 1. "Today's "best practices" lead to dead ends, best paths are new and untried.

The question that Thiel asks when he wants to understand someone is "What important truth do few people agree with you on"? His answer is; "Most people think that the world will be defined by globalization, but the truth is that technology matters more".

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE technology, but I think the future of the world will be defined by MEANING -- the West won't survive Islam (or the next "meaningful opponent") if we don't define a meaning and purpose for our existence -- and yes, expansion. To have a purpose, you have to believe, and if you believe, you believe that others would be served by believing. "I'm OK, You're OK" is not a meaningful philosophy!

I loved this line: "Brilliant thinking is rare, but courage is in shorter supply than genius". Again, it IS TODAY, because bowing to the "standard PC position" is more important than it was prior to the Reformation! Modern thought turns smaller and smaller molehills into mountains -- see NC!

My top favorite big ideas of the book are:

1) Monopoly is GOOD, competition is BAD. (in a static world, monopoly would be bad) I'm not going to argue the whole position here, but he does it very well. "The history of progress is the history of a better monopoly business replacing incumbents".  Think about it -- when Apple came along and created the expensive iPhone, people got violent in waiting lines to get at it. THAT is monopoly power, and you in fact WANT it -- badly, and it is the only way that our world will improve (technology wise).  "Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding completely new categories of abundance to the world".

2). You are not a lottery ticket --  but first a couple one liners (I love one-liners!) "Elite students climb confidently until they reach a level of competition sufficiently intense to beat their dreams out of them."  ... thus,  "All Rhodes Scholars had a great future in their past"

" ... if you expect an indefinite future ruled by randomness, you'll give up on trying to master it. Indefinite attitudes to the future explain what's most dysfunctional in our world today. Process trumps substance..."

HELLO -- see "diverse financial portfolio", "well rounded education", etc, etc.

He covers 4 basic global attitudes and makes EXCELLENT cases for each:

• Indefinite Pessimism -- something bad is going to happen but not sure what. This is where Europe is "Europeans just react to events and hope things don't get worse". 
• Definite Pessimism -- The future is bleak and we know why. China is the prime example -- they know they are copying, they don't see how they can innovate their way to true prosperity, so they try to get their money out of the country. 
• Definite Optimism -- The future is bright and we know why. Western Civilization from the 17th century to the Moon Landing. 
• Indefinite Optimism -- The future is bright but we have no clue why. "He expects to profit from the future but sees no reason to design it concretely". The United States today.  "Indefinite optimists are so used to effortless progress that they feel entitled to it". "A whole generation learned from childhood to overrate the power of chance and underrate the importance of planning". 

For those of you that were sentenced to serve in an institution like IBM for some period of time, there is this: "...arguing over process has become a way to endlessly defer making concrete plans for a better future".  Oh, and you can "reorg" and have new buzzwords too! ;-) 

It's hard to believe this review is getting long. The whole book is a small 195 pages and I'm really only covering the first 75! IMHO, unless you are doing a startup, you COULD skip the last 90 or so pages, but that is not what I recommend. 

I'll close with what I think might turn out to the biggest mistake of human history so far -- Darwinism. "Actually, almost everybody in the modern world has already heard an answer to this question [how Indefinite Optimism MIGHT work] progress without planning is what we call "evolution"". 

Thiel goes on to point out that we may have a good deal more faith in this concept than is warranted. As I've pointed out, "it evolved" has become the modern answer to "it's God's will!", and while Western Civilization was optimistically marching to the real "God's Will" from the Reformation to the Moon Landing, we haven't really "evolved" all that well since -- or as Thiel puts it. 

"The smartphones that distract us from our surroundings also distract us from the fact that our surroundings are strangely old: only computers and communications have improved dramatically since midcentury."

He summarizes on Darwinism ... "Darwinism may be a fine theory in other contexts, but in startups, intelligent design works best". Startups don't have a billion years to get it right ... does Western civilization?

I'm NOT doing the book justice -- he has some great stuff on "power laws",  computer "substitution" vs man / machine partnership (his company Palantir), what founders of companies (or lots of things) ought to be like, and some great thoughts on what kinds of futures we may be choosing from as we check our smartphones.

READ IT!

Top Gun To Top Ivan, Baltic Flybys

Russian war planes buzz U.S. destroyer in Baltic:

Back in 1986 when Tom Cruise gave the Bear the Bird, got the girl, faced down the death of his back-seater and blew away the bad guys, America was a different country. It is often hard to believe that I used to live there! It was a privilege.

Reagan's America vs BO's America. Sure, Top Gun was a movie, but is there ANY doubt about which direction we and our adversaries were going THEN vs NOW? Fortunately the Berlin Wall going down was NOT a movie, and equally unfortunately, the Russians increasingly playing "Top Ivan" against our forces is ALSO not a movie!

Just because you decide that "strength is dangerous" is no guarantee that everyone else will follow suit. I still maintain that when the offensive line of an NFL team walks into a bar, there aren't very many people that say "Hey, let's pick a fight with THOSE GUYS!"

Looks like Russia buzzed a plane in the Baltic today, so I'm guessing we will be pulling out of there. This all seems fine until they start buzzing your ships in the Gulf of Mexico -- but hey, look at Hillary and tell me that the Russians won't treat her with a WHOLE lot of respect! She at least looks a lot nastier than BO I guess.

Maybe THIS "America" will lodge a nice complaint with the UN if they SINK some of our ships in some gulf! I'm sure our adversaries are considering that as a reasonable possibility at this point.

Strength MIGHT get you into a fight YOU choose -- weakness gets your ass kicked by whomever decides to kick it.

'via Blog this'

Brazil, "Kickbacks, Dirty Money and Lies"

How Brazil, the darling of the developing world, came undone - The Washington Post:

It seems that the economy in Brazil and that in the US have a lot in common. When innovation, productivity, growth, successful businesses, leadership and law are replaced with BOism -- pretty much defined by "kickbacks, dirty money and lies", then disaster awaits. In the case of Brazil, it didn't take long -- we hope that we don't continue our slide to their depths on a similar track.

The plunge that Rousseff and the country have taken has laid bare the frailty of Brazil’s commodity-driven growth. Big parts of the Brazil model, it turns out, were glued together with kickbacks, dirty money and lies.

The false "success" of Brazil was commodity based, our current false success is debt based, but it is complicated because it was preceded by a long history of REAL productivity, including very recently from '82 up through '07. But debt is even a worse basis for success than commodities -- and even here, a lot of what has counted as "growth" was commodity based as in fracking for oil which was strongly opposed by BO, but naturally something else he is very happy to take credit for!

Yet there is little doubt that Rousseff would not be facing the mutiny if she were not so politically weak, with an approval rating of 13 percent. The country is facing a 3.8 percent economic contraction for the second year in a row.

It is very hard to even guess at what the actual economic numbers are in the US at this point -- the books have been cooked!  A 1-2% contraction for the past two years is a good guess.  If there was an R in the WH does anyone want to imagine what the approval rating here would be? 13% might be HIGH. 8 years of economic disaster, open borders, retreat around the globe, stupid "red lines", "deals" with Iranians thumbing their noses at us in one way or another every month or so -- if you add together the 30-40% of Republicans and similar number of Democrats that are screaming OUTSIDER for 2016, the "pissed off" percentage in this country must be 30-80%!

The "difference" is the media is VERY careful to not blame BO for ANYTHNG -- no, the Republicans are "out of touch", Hillary is a "bad candidate", Trump just "appeals to the stupid", etc ... all of which may be true, but I totally guarantee you that if there was an R in the WH it would be their fault!

The fish rots from the head!!!

Only it doesn't .. it rots from the belly, which is us -- the people. We are the real rot. The media is just another part of the odor.



'via Blog this'

Saudi Arabia

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433990/release-truth-release-redacted-28-pages-about-saudi-arabia-and-911

The last paragraph of this article is well worth reflecting on:

My general philosophy of the Middle East is simple — however bad you think the place is, in reality it’s far worse. Even our “allies” will constantly surprise even the most hardened cynic with their mendacity and double-dealing. We’ve long known that our so-called alliance with Saudi Arabia has put us in bed with the devil. It’s time the American people learned how evil that devil truly is.

It is pretty much the same as Washington DC -- no matter which party you tend to support, this election year makes it completely obvious that the corruption in DC is **FAR** worse than you can imagine! The reaction of BOTH parties to Cruz and Trump ought to be proof enough. BOTH parties would actually rather have Trump than Cruz, because he is more likely to carry on the corruption!

This past week I was at a discussion where an immigrant from Egypt and a refugee from Syria were present. They were both convinced that the Saudi corruption was the true core of the unrest in the Arab world.

• Saudi Arabia contains Mecca -- the site you must visit to attain paradise if you are not willing to be a martyr
• The House of Saud is a fabulously wealthy tribe that maintains total control and likes to dabble in as much western decadence as it can get away with.  
• "It's price" is support for the Wahhabi Sect of Sunni Islam which has been funded lavishly and world wide since especially the 1970's. 
• A look at the Grand Mosque Seizure in 1979 gives some idea of the dangerous tightrope the Saudi's walk, and how many of the responses they make increase the danger / tensions for not just them, but the rest of the world. 

The "big problem" as the west finally woke up to in 1100AD and formed the First Crusade is that Islam is at war with any who are not Muslims! Islam means SUBMISSION, after which comes "peace". So if you are not a Muslim, Islam is at war with YOU -- ultimately you can either defeat them or die. A little more detail on this here.

As I travel through the Old Testament in my Bible reading, I am consistently reminded that Christ is THE WORD ... ALL the Word, Old and New Testaments. Somehow the Son of Man that rebuked the wind, drove the money changers from the temple with a whip and simply walked back through a crowd intent on pushing him from a cliff in NEW Testament, as well as being the Word of Creation, death to Sodom and Gomorrah, the Red Sea washing over the Egyptian Army and so much more in the old Testament is somehow made to be a "pacifist". It's a TRINITY -- Christ is FULLY Yahweh, the OT God is not some "first draft", he IS Christ as well.

When Christ heals the Centurion's servant, he responds to him with " When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith"" ... not a word about "leaving the military". Likewise, when John the Baptist was approached by some soldiers; "What should we do?" asked some soldiers. John replied, "Don't extort money or make false accusations. And be content with your pay.""

If the west had not finally rose up and defended itself in 1100, Islam would most likely have destroyed Christianity in Europe -- or God would have intervened there or some other way. I'm often reminded of the old Jewish Lottery joke:

“There is this very pious Jew named Goldberg who always dreamed of winning the lottery. Every Sabbath, he’d go to synagogue and pray: “God, I have been such a pious Jew all my life. What would be so bad if I won the lottery?”
But the lottery would come and Goldberg wouldn’t win. Week after week, Goldberg would pray to win the lottery, but the lottery would come and Goldberg wouldn’t win.
Finally, one Sabbath, Goldberg wails to the heavens and says: “God, I have been so pious for so long, what do I have to do to win the lottery?”
“And the heavens parted and the voice of God came down: “Goldberg, give me a chance! Buy a ticket!”

I don't believe that God ONLY helps those that help themselves -- but I believe that if we listen well and by TAKE ACTION, we provide a much better chance for his blessing!

YOU LIE! The Take Care Clause

Obama’s Unconstitutional Immigration Order | Hoover Institution: 

My guess is that if Scalia was still alive, we would all understand the "Take Care Clause" in the Constitution by the end of the summer. As it is, it most likely will be a 4 to 4 to forget about clarifying why we used to have a Democratic Republic, but now have something closer to an actual Monarchy like the one we once rebelled against. 

"The Take Care Clause, found in Article II of the Constitution, the Executive Power Article, is comprised of only nine words: the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” But an understanding of those nine words requires an appreciation of their roots in English history. Like many other structural features of the United States Constitution, the Take Care Clause derives from the long struggle between Parliament and the Crown over the extent of “prerogative powers”—that is, the monarch’s asserted powers to create laws or otherwise to act unilaterally."

The BO reign is loaded with examples of explicitly NOT enforcing MANY laws, with immigration just being one example. Marijuana? I'm ALL in favor of making MANY of our federal laws into state laws -- drugs, abortion, gay "marriage", gender in bathrooms, etc, but NOT "who is a citizen of the US"! But as is usually case, BO goes even father than KINGS have for a good long while.

Things came to a head in 1215 at Runnymede. Faced with armed insurrection, John agreed to The Great Charter, which established the principle that the king is not a law unto himself; even the king must act through settled law to bind his subjects.

So what BO now declares is his power to be MORE THAN A KING! Cannot ALL AMERICANS agree that if the next president is a Hillary, Trump or Cruz we DO NOT want them to be more than a king?

The President was correct in October 2010 when he recognized that only Congress can lawfully effectuate DAPA. As he said then: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” Indeed, even James II could not do these things by himself. The Framers adopted the Take Care Clause to ensure that the executive in this republic is likewise forbidden to make law unilaterally. That is why the duty to “take care” means so much.

How many times did we hear "Bush lied people died?". In the MSM, we NEVER hear that BO lies -- though he does of course, constantly and in our faces. One primary example was at a SOTU when he lied to our faces and said that BOcare "would not apply to those that are here illegally" -- which of course is EXACTLY what BO's DAPA order enables.

Read the linked article and then decide if you believe BO or the heckler was being truthful!

Ban NC, Qatar OK!

Days after barring city employee travel to anti-LGBT states, Santa Fe mayor to travel to Qatar | KOB.com:



The uninitiated think that lack of consistency is a bug, but actually it is a HUGE feature! It shows that the left has the POWER to define "reality" any way they want! The point they make by these actions is POWER! They can declare NC to be "off limits" because men need to use men's bathrooms and women women's, but at the SAME TIME as banning travel to NC, they are willing to go to Qatar, where you damned well better choose the right bathroom, and if you are gay and not "diplomatically protected", get ready to be STONED (and not in the "Colorado sense") or "thrown from a high place".



The critical thing is that everyone that lacks complete alignment with The Party and it's power structure is to GET OUR MINDS RIGHT!



THE PARTY declares what is and is not "good, acceptable, right"!



'via Blog this'