Monday, March 30, 2015
I’m sorry, but the ultimate pro-life, pro-poor, pro-family issue that the Bible calls Christians to engage in is bringing the lost to Christ (see CANON). For the leader of the largest church in the world to state otherwise brings into question his beliefs.
Saturday, March 28, 2015
O’Reilly: “It is long past time for Americans to stop the ideological nonsense and see things for what they really are. Mr. Obama has made very serious mistakes in foreign policy and the entire War on Terror is now going against the good guys -- us and other anti-jihadist nations. The mistakes must stop.”In O’Reilly’s Spin Zone, Obama does not act for ideological reasons, he acts out of incompetence. He makes mistakes.
Friday, March 27, 2015
A Baal Tyrant website reveals their preference for Republican presidential candidates:1) Jeb Bush
2) Scott Walker
3) Other Republican contenders
Ted Cruz is not on the list.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Monday, March 23, 2015
There are people who wonder if faith is real. I can tell you, in my family there’s not a second of doubt, because were it not for the transformative love of Jesus Christ, I would not have been saved and I would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the household.
For so many Americans, the promise of America seems more and more distant. What is the promise of America? The idea that -- the revolutionary idea that this country was founded upon, which is that our rights don’t come from man. They come from God Almighty.
Today, roughly half of born again Christians aren’t voting. They’re staying home. Imagine instead millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values.
God’s blessing has been on America from the very beginning of this nation, and I believe God isn’t done with America yet.
With Ted Cruz as president, hopefully leading a more conservative Republican congress starting in 2017, this nation will be led out from under this Baal Tyranny (that is, if the country can last for 21 more months under Obama).
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Makes sense. See my post below “Is Pope Francis’ church like Obama’s church?” and other posts of mine regarding Pope Francis. Also, see the connection with my RINO Theorem in my post “What’s going on with the Democrat Baal Tyrants?”
The Daily Beast calls out the Democrats for their Baal Capitalism! Including questioning Elizabeth Warren about why she supports it. Just who do they want in 2016?
Friday, March 13, 2015
”perhaps the most liberal of the Mainline Protestant American denominations?”
“his relationship with the UCC represents the perfect marriage of church and politician.”
“it draws on selective Christian teachings and selective Christian traditions to provide general spiritual comfort and, specifically, to inspire its members to progressive social activism.”
“The result of this theology is a transition of focus from a relationship with the divine to a relationship with man, and to advocacy of very specific social policies.”
“Accepting love requires a form of justice that is inclusive of all people, particularly those who in some way have been marginalized by oppressive social practice.”
“The mission of the Church is, therefore, to see that those who have been rejected are included, for justice as inclusion defines public policy.”
“The result is a practical equivalence between the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and a particular form of social justice.”
President Obama’s church, at its core, is thoroughly and officially invested in politics.
“the church connects members to far-left social-justice resources.”
“There is remarkable conformity, in fact, between President Obama’s words and policies and his church’s official positions on public policy — a level of conformity that would cause alarms to ring across the progressive spectrum if there were similar Evangelical church statements to which a conservative president adhered.”
“The UCC and the rest of the Protestant Mainline offer little religion in the classical sense, but rather spiritualized politics supplemented with personal inspiration and self-created meaning — inspiration and meaning that they believe can be gained from virtually any other major religion.”
“But when it comes to his civic religion, President Obama is his church’s — and liberal Christianity’s — great and mighty instrument.”
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Monday, March 9, 2015
by this guy avoiding the shutdown of the Baal Tyranny.
Thursday, March 5, 2015
I think a lot of people are shocked that the left wing media seems to be going after Hillary and suggesting other establishment candidates should run against her. I’m thinking that maybe they are thinking the RINO strategy worked so well over the past couple of elections that they want to try it. They will have a bunch of establishment Democrats run against each other so that the votes will be split among them and then the more left-wing candidate will win the nomination. However, I’m sure they think their strategy will work differently than the RINO strategy in that the candidate nominated will defeat whoever the Republicans nominate.
I pretty much defined the RINO strategy when I used to post my theorem on the Politics Forum. Here is my theorem:
RINO will willingly lose elections if, in so doing, it prevents Conservatives from winning them.
1. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
2. RINO are not insane (this one is debateable). Therefore, there must be a method to their madness.
3. RINO know that their policies are weak. But they think that their policies are more acceptable than Democrats’ and Conservatives’ policies.
4. RINO prefer Democrat policies over Conservative policies.
5. RINO try to make their policies more acceptable to voters by calling the Conservatives extremists.
6. RINO know from experience that they cannot win against Democrats. People who want Democrat policies vote for Democrats and people who want Conservative policies vote for Conservatives. There aren’t enough people left to vote for RINO to get them elected.
7. Even though RINO know they cannot win against Democrats, they will work to get nominations to run against Democrats so that the Conservatives cannot even compete against the Democrats.
1. Even though RINO John McCain had lost to Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, RINO Mitt Romney ran against Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Romney was in a series of Republican debates where he was pitted against several Conservatives. Because he could get the “moderate” vote and the other votes were split among the Conservatives, he won the Republican nomination. Romney then went on to lose the election against Obama.
2. Even though RINO John McCain lost to Democrat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election and RINO Mitt Romney lost to Obama in the 2012 presidential election, RINO Jeb Bush will run against Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. Bush will be in a series of Republican debates where he will be pitted against several Conservatives. The Republican National Committee is limiting the number of these debates because of the fear that one Conservative could over the course of too many debates become the leading candidate. Because Bush will get the “moderate” vote and the other votes will be split among the Conservatives, Bush will win the Republican nomination. Bush will then go on to lose the election against Clinton (ala 1992 Bush vs Clinton).
3. Jeb Bush said on Dec. 1, 2014 “A nominee should lose the primary to win the general”. Of course, being a politician, he says the opposite of what he thinks. He really means “A nominee should win the primary to lose the general.”
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Monday, March 2, 2015
Please also see my previous post by another Catholic “Is this why no show (82122.4)?” at BaalTyranny.blogspot.com.
Also, see BaalTyranny.blogspot.com CANON button.
Some quotes from the article:
The Pope is engaged in a struggle to bring the Church into the modern age. And American conservatives are fighting him every step of the way.
The world’s most renowned Christian theological guide is, of course, the Pope.
Each Pope, therefore, must make use of the richness of Church tradition, while also ministering effectively to a world of ever-evolving challenges and realities.
Legendarily plainspoken Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput said that the right wing of the Church “generally have not been really happy” with Francis’s papacy.
In May 2014, conservative Catholic writer Michael Brendan Dougherty published a provocative op-ed in The Week arguing that “Catholics must learn to resist their Popes—even Pope Francis.” Dougherty suggested that the legitimacy of papal teaching—and in a sense, the principle of papal infallibility—was subject to review by the greater body of Catholic faithful. The duty of the believer, he concluded, “is not just to rebuke and correct those in authority ... but to throw rotting cabbage at them, or make them miserable.”
There have always been grumblings about popes, but the differences in opinion between Francis and the movement collectively known as the “American right” appear especially numerous.
Irving Kristol, an influential neoconservative, wrote in his 1976 essay “What Is a Neoconservative?” that conservatives should be “respectful of traditional values and institutions” as a central tenet of their politics and practice. Kristol believed that obligation to “the sovereignty of traditional values” kept people moored to the past in a way that prevented the nihilism that leads to authoritarianism and anomie. The freedom of markets and appropriate weakness of the state depend on citizens preferring traditional modes of living to the heady vertigo of progressivism.
Suspicion of a Catholic gesture toward modernity—and thus the world—colors the attitudes of conservative Catholics toward him.
Pope Francis approaches the past with dialogue, not mere deference, in mind. He knows that the only useful approach to the past is to recognize it as a work in progress. This has the effect of imbuing accumulated tradition with no special authority over current conclusions. The present and the past must speak as equals, as both are works of human effort. From that alone conservatively disposed Catholics might flinch. This attitude—this disposition—allows him to utilize a modern lexicon while drawing on Church tradition. Consider, for instance, his remarks on financial inequality, in which he called for a “legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state.”
Every blowhard with a stake in unmitigated capitalism, from Rush Limbaugh to The Economist, has had their turn at accusing Francis of sundry McCarthyist infractions, Marxist, Leninist, and otherwise.
Francis’s handling of tradition and modernity privileges neither, but rather produces a workable synthesis of their contributions. Conservative appeals to the past, in contrast, rely on the sort of “decline” narrative for which they seem especially partial. Newly elected Republican Senator Joni Ernst used her response to this year’s State of the Union Address to reminisce about her childhood in Iowa, recalling that “[my] parents may not have had much, but they worked hard for what they did have.” Ernst’s words harken back to a time when people were satisfied with poverty. They also cast modern-day folk in a less-than-flattering light: We don’t work for what we have and instead subsist on oft-maligned handouts like welfare. Finally, those who do work have less to show for it than the imagined bootstrappers of yesteryear, thanks to the regulatory bogeyman that is the federal government.