There is no evidence that @AOC ever picked up a book on President Ronald Reagan, so she would not know he created over 18 million jobs during his eight years in office and kicked off a 26 year run of economic growth.
There is no evidence of @AOC ever picked up a book on President Reagan. so she would not know he was the president who signed the order creating the Dr. Martin Luther King national holiday.
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez slammed political moderates at the South by Southwest Conference & Festivals in Austin, Texas, calling their views “misplaced” as she defended her progressive politics in a room full of supporters.
“Moderate is not a stance. It’s just an attitude towards life of, like, ‘meh,’” the New York Democrat said Saturday during an interview with Briahna Gray, senior politics editor for the Intercept. “We’ve become so cynical, that we view ‘meh,’ or ‘eh’ — we view cynicism as an intellectually superior attitude, and we view ambition as youthful naivete when … the greatest things we have ever accomplished as a society have been ambitious acts of visions, and the ‘meh’ is just worshipped now, for what?”
The self-declared Democratic socialist also criticized the treatment of minorities throughout American history, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal, which she claimed was racist, to Ronald Reagan’s policies, which she said “pitted” white working class people against minorities in order “to screw over all working-class Americans,” particularly African-Americans and Hispanics.
“So you think about this image of welfare queens and what he was really trying to talk about was … this like really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing, that were ‘sucks’ on our country,” she said.
“And it’s this whole tragedy of the commons type of thinking where it’s like because … this one specific group of people, that you are already kind of subconsciously primed to resent, you give them a different reason that’s not explicit racism but still rooted in a racist caricature,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “It gives people a logical reason, a ‘logical’ reason to say, ‘Oh yeah, no, toss out the whole social safety net.'”
Other topics Ocasio-Cortez discussed included the Green New Deal and capitalism, which she said could not be redeemed because it puts profit “above everything else.”
“The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished,” she said.
Remember when the Former (Thank God) President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, spoke about “sharing the wealth” to a plumber named Joe during his 2008 Presidential Campaign?
101 years ago in Russia, a revolution was based on this very idea.
The unworkable theory that it is based on is known as Marxism. No government which has taken it as their political philosophy has ever flourished. The government grew and those working within it became rich while the “Proletariat” or average working citizens starved, giving all they had “for the good of the State”.
For quite a while now, I have been referring to those of the Far Left Democratic Party, such as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her colleagues Ilham Omar and Rashida Tlaib, who have been doing every thing they can to disrupt and interfere with the success of President Donald J. Trump and the comeback of the Greatest Country on the face of the Earth, as the “New Bolsheviks”.
To be immodest, it looks like I nailed that one.
These new “useful idiots” are so “out there” that they have the Old Guard of the Democratic Party running scared and on the verge of allowing them to run the party and their political campaign strategies for not only this year’s Midterm Elections but possibly the 2020 Presidential Elections as well.
As America has witnessed, the Democratic Party has been moving further and further to the left side of the Political Spectrum for decades now.
So, it is really no surprise that they are on the precipice of becoming which they have been whining about for several years: fascists.
But they are not becoming just any kind of fascists. They are becoming Marxist Fascists, extolling the “benevolent goodness” of an all-powerful Central Government who will take care of everyone from cradle to grave, like AOC did this weekend.
And, those who refuse to give up their individual freedom as guaranteed to us by our Constitution will be shunned and ridiculed as “intolerant, ignorant hillbillies”.
For example, AOC erroneously attempting to label the late great Former President Ronald Wilson Reagan as being a “racist”.
Reagan, like President Donald J. Trump believed in our American Economic System and he caused it to grow after years of “malaise” under President Jimmy Carter.
You see, boys and girls, that’s the secret of American Exceptionalism, a concept that Obama always gave lip service to, but, clearly, never believed in.
For America to prosper, we must remain free. For America to remain free, we must be prosperous.
American Capitalism is the engine which drives a strong, vibrant economy. American Capitalism is the result of the courageous Entrepreneurial Spirit of American Citizens. The same “Can Do” attitude which led to Western Expansion and triumphs against those before-mentioned enemies, foreign and domestic.
President Ronald Reagan often referred to America as “The Shining City on the Hill” meaning that her people and the Sovereign Nation itself were an example to the rest of the world as to what a free people were capable of creating for themselves with God’s Providence.
Reagan knew that American Exceptionalism was an inspiration to the rest of the free world, not a bone of contention as America’s previous occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue claimed it to be.
And, just like the Gipper, President Trump knows that for America to be successful in a Global Economy, we must put America First, in order to negotiate with other countries from a position of strength.
This philosophy has enabled American business to regain the trust of Global Investors and is helping to ensure that our children and grandchildren will have more opportunities to forge their own bright economic futures.
Under all forms of Marxism, including “Democratic Socialism, the only ones who will become wealthy will be those who work for the government.
Why do you think that the Far Left Democrats are pushing so hard for “Democratic Socialism”?
President Donald Trump was just doing what he could to raise spirits when he signed Bibles at an Alabama church for survivors of a deadly tornado outbreak, many religious leaders say, though some are offended and others say he could have handled it differently.
Hershael York, dean of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary School of Theology in Louisville, Ky., said he didn’t have a problem with Trump signing Bibles, like former presidents have, because he was asked and because it was important to the people who were asking.
“Though we don’t have a national faith, there is faith in our nation, and so it’s not at all surprising that people would have politicians sign their Bibles,” he said. “Those Bibles are meaningful to them and apparently these politicians are, too.”
But the Rev. Donnie Anderson, executive minister of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches, said she was offended by the way Trump scrawled his signature Friday as he autographed Bibles and other things, including hats, and posed for photos. She viewed it, she said, as a “calculated political move” by the Republican president to court his evangelical voting base.
Presidents have a long history of signing Bibles, though earlier presidents typically signed them as gifts to send with a spiritual message. President Ronald Reagan signed a Bible that was sent secretly to Iranian officials in 1986. President Franklin Roosevelt signed the family Bible his attorney general used to take the oath of office in 1939.
It would have been different, Anderson said, if Trump had signed a Bible out of the limelight for someone with whom he had a close connection.
“For me, the Bible is a very important part of my faith, and I don’t think it should be used as a political ploy,” she said. “I saw it being used just as something out there to symbolize his support for the evangelical community, and it shouldn’t be used in that way. People should have more respect for Scripture.”
York said that he, personally, would not ask a politician to sign a Bible, but that he has been asked to sign Bibles after he preaches. It feels awkward, he said, but he doesn’t refuse.
“If it’s meaningful to them to have signatures in their Bible, I’m willing to do that,” he said.
Trump visited Alabama on Friday to survey the devastation and pay respects to tornado victims. The tornado carved a path of destruction nearly a mile wide, killing 23 people, including four children and a couple in their 80s, with 10 victims belonging to a single extended family.
At the Providence Baptist Church in Smiths Station, Ala., the Rev. Rusty Sowell said, the president’s visit was uplifting and will help bring attention to a community that will need a long time to recover.
Before leaving the church, Trump posed for a photograph with a fifth-grade volunteer and signed the child’s Bible, said Ada Ingram, a local volunteer. The president also signed her sister’s Bible, Ingram said. In photos from the visit, Trump is shown signing the cover of a Bible.
Trump should have at least signed inside in a less ostentatious way, said the Rev. Dr. Kevin Cassiday-Maloney.
“It just felt like hubris,” said Cassiday-Maloney, pastor at the First Congregational United Church of Christ in Fargo, North Dakota. “It almost felt like a desecration of the holy book to put his signature on the front writ large, literally.”
He doesn’t think politicians should sign Bibles, he said, because it could be seen as a blurring of church and state and an endorsement of Christianity over other religions.
It would have been out of line if Trump had brought Bibles and given them out, but that wasn’t the case, said James Coffin, executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida.
“Too much is being made out of something that doesn’t deserve that kind of attention,” he said.
Bill Leonard, the founding dean and professor of divinity emeritus at the Wake Forest University School of Divinity in Winston-Salem, N.C., woke up to Facebook posts Saturday morning by former students who were upset about Trump signing the Bibles because they don’t view him as an appropriate example of spiritual guidance.
But, Leonard said, it’s important to remember that signing Bibles is an old tradition, particularly in southern churches.
Leonard said he would have viewed it as more problematic if the signings were done at a political rally. He doesn’t see how Trump could have refused at the church.
“It would’ve been worse if he had said no because it would’ve seemed unkind, and this was at least one way he could show his concern along with his visit,” he said. “In this setting, where tragedy has occurred and where he comes for this brief visit, we need to have some grace about that for these folks.”
Amen.
Gentle Readers, did you notice in the above article that those who objected were representatives of Liberal Churches?
First,, there is NO SUCH THING as “Separation of Church and State” in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Second, President Trump was honoring God by signing children’s Bibles in that small Alabama town.
Christianity has played a predominant role in the building of our nation. In fact, the Capitol building itself was used for church services, even before Congress moved into the building, and continued to be used for Sunday Church Services until well after the Civil War.
The approval of the Capitol for church was given by both the House and the Senate on December 4, 1800, with House approval being given by Speaker of the House, Theodore Sedgwick, and Senate approval being given by the President of the Senate, Thomas Jefferson, whose approval came while he was still officially the Vice- President but after he had just been elected President.
Jefferson attended church at the Capitol while he was Vice President 5 and also throughout his presidency. The first Capitol church service that Jefferson attended as President was a service preached by Jefferson’s friend, the Rev. John Leland, on January 3, 1802. 6 Significantly, Jefferson attended that Capitol church service just two days after he penned his famous letter containing the “wall of separation between church and state” metaphor.
U. S. Rep. Manasseh Cutler, who also attended church at the Capitol, recorded in his own diary that “He [Jefferson] and his family have constantly attended public worship in the Hall.” Mary Bayard Smith, another attendee at the Capitol services, confirmed: “Mr. Jefferson, during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant.” She noted that Jefferson even had a designated seat at the Capitol church: “The seat he chose the first Sabbath, and the adjoining one (which his private secretary occupied), were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary.” Jefferson was so committed to those services that he would not even allow inclement weather to dissuade him; as Rep. Cutler noted: “It was very rainy, but his [Jefferson’s] ardent zeal brought him through the rain and on horseback to the Hall.” Other diary entries confirm Jefferson’s attendance in spite of bad weather.
…Jefferson was not the only President to attend church at the Capitol. His successor, James Madison, also attended church at the Capitol. 14 However, there was a difference in the way the two arrived for services. Observers noted that Jefferson arrived at church on horseback 15 (it was 1.6 miles from the White House to the Capitol). However, Madison arrived for church in a coach and four. In fact, British diplomat Augustus Foster, who attended services at the Capitol, gave an eloquent description of President Madison arriving at the Capitol for church in a carriage drawn by four white horses.
The series of cacophonous thuds you just heard were the “I’m-smarter than-you” Modern American Marxists…err…Liberals falling off of their chairs. You see, they will argue until they are blue in the face that Jefferson and Madison were not Christians, and our founding documents were not based on a Judeo-Christian system of beliefs.
Then, they go out to feed the unicorn in their backyard.
Jefferson told his friend, William Bradford (who served as Attorney General under President Washington), to make sure of his own spiritual salvation:
[A] watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven.
The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.
The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.
I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.
I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.
But, what about Jefferson’s re-writing of the Bible, leaving out Jesus’ miracles, you ask? David Barton answered that question in 2001, in a letter to a newspaper, in response to a reader:
The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson’s own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government’s expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.
The other Founding Father whom today’s Liberals claim was an Atheist is James Madison.
Per David Barton:
James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison’s writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.
Also, as this writing shows, Madison wanted all public officials – including Bradford – to be unashamed concerning their Christian beliefs and testimony:
I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way.
Did you know that Madison was a member of the committee that authored the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights and approved of its clause declaring that:
It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other. ?
And, per Barton, Madison’s proposed wording for the First Amendment demonstrates that he opposed only the establishment of a federal denomination, not public religious activities. The proposal reads:
The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established.
But, wait. There’s more:
In 1789, Madison served on the Congressional committee which authorized, approved, and selected paid Congressional chaplains.
In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided a Bible Society in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
Finally, throughout his Presidency (1809-1816), Madison endorsed public and official religious expressions by issuing several proclamations for national days of prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving.
So, if you run into one of those individuals who, when it comes to accepting the Faith of our Founding Fathers and that fact that President Trump was doing exactly what those noble men would have done in that same situation in that church in Alabama, proves that denial is not just a river in Egypt, you can respond with one or all of three things:
“You won’t get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There’s only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up and if you don’t actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time… It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience.” – President Ronald Reagan
A resolution introduced in the Hawaii Senate this week urges the U.S. Congress to “consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right.”
The resolution also urges Congress to adopt a proposed constitutional amendment “to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms.”
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
The 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller also stated, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.”
The Hawaii Senate resolution has been referred to committee and no hearings are scheduled at this time.
Of Hawaii’s 25 state senators, only one is Republican. The rest are Democrats.
In a related story, John R. Lott, Jr., writes in an Op Ed for FoxNews.com that
Democrats in the U.S. House are likely to approve spending $50 million in taxpayer funds for public health research on gun violence. While that may sound like a good idea at first glance, it really wouldn’t do anything to reduce gun violence in our country.
I testified Thursday before the House Appropriations Committee’s health subcommittee to inject facts into the discussion of the Democratic bill.
It should go without saying that everyone opposes gun violence. But it’s important to take effective measures to deal with this problem and not simply take actions that sound appealing but won’t really save lives.
The idea behind the $50 million in research funding is to have medical professionals apply tools they developed to study cancer, heart disease and other diseases and use them to study crime, accidental death and suicide. But to state the obvious, gun violence and diseases are two very different things.
The National Rifle Association – regularly demonized in the media and by many Democrats – has been blamed for preventing academics from doing research on firearms. So supporters of the bill that would spend $50 million to research gun violence as a public health issue say their bill is needed to stop the NRA from blocking vital research that will save lives.
But there’s a big problem with the argument: it’s not true.
Opponents of the Second Amendment who are eager to impose as many restrictions as possible on firearms falsely claim that a measure enacted in 1996 called the Dickey Amendment – named after former Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark. – barred research on gun violence to be funded by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
But in reality, here is what the reviled Dickey Amendment states: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to *advocate or promote gun control.”* (Italics added).
Let’s face it, gentle readers, we all knew that once they became the majority in the House of Representatives, the Democrats would, once again, come after the guns of law-abiding citizens.
The Democrats’ renewed quest for “Gun Control”, if successful, would only succeed in controlling law-abiding American Citizens, instead of punishing those who operate outside of our laws, such as Parkland High School Mass Murderer Nikolas Cruz and the thugs who have turned Former President Obama’s “hometown” of Chicago and my hometown of Memphis into their own personal “Killing Fields”.
The leader of the bloody Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin, once wrote that
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
If the Democrats had their way, we would live in a country under the oppression of restrictive gun laws, which would be modeled after those in Europe. And, as past events have plainly shown, those restrictive gun laws have allowed Islamic Terrorists and other murderous nut jobs to kill innocent people unchallenged, because none of those innocent people were allowed to carry a weapon with which to defend themselves.
In fact, in some cases, even the police officers, who first arrived on the scene, were unarmed, and had to call for additional forces, thus giving the perpetrators more time to murder and maim the innocent.
One of our Founding Fathers, Dr. Benjamin Franklin, once wrote,
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Like Dr. Franklin and the rest of those who have fought for our freedom, average Americans realize what Democrats do not.
The problem in stopping mass murders like yesterday’s from happening is not that there are not enough gun laws. The problem is the gun laws on the books are not properly enforced.
The dissolution of the Family Unit, the revolving door state of our Municipal Justice Systems, and, in the case of the perpetrator of the Parkland High School Massacre, Nikolas Cruz, the lack of recognition and treatment of the mentally ill and wannabe Terrorists, have a lot to do with the rise of these horrible massacres in America and the horrible violence which plagues cities like Chicago and Memphis.
What Liberals have never understood, in their continuous quest to take away the Second Amendment rights of average Americans is that we will never surrender our Constitutional Right to defend ourselves and our families from enemies foreign and domestic.
What part of the words quote “shall not be infringed” do you Liberals not understand?
Passing more restrictive gun laws is not the answer.
Criminals are called “outlaws” for a reason.
They will find a way to get guns. They do now.
This is a people problem. Not a gun problem.
After all, have you ever seen a gun pull its own trigger?
Do you remember 4 months ago, after the Midterm Elections, when the Democratic Leadership and their Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media, were telling everybody that the presumptive Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, would make the House Dems “toe the line”, unifying them as a body, and bring down the “Hammer of Justice” on President Donald J. Trump?
A funny thing happened on the way to Pelosi’s “benevolent dictatorship” in the House of Representatives.
Pelosi is now finding herself and all of the “Old Guard” House Dems being pushed out of political power by 3 first year Congresswomen, anti-Semitic Marxists who have quite literally “come out of nowhere” to take all the air out of the House of Representatives.
And, the “Iron Lady” of the House can not seem to do anything about it.
…A Democratic source told Fox News on Wednesday that Pelosi has been “taken aback” by the growing dissent and anger among rank-and-file Democrats over the resolution — highlighting Pelosi’s tenuous grip on control over the House and underscoring the growing power of the party’s nascent far-left progressive wing.
Pelosi reportedly walked out of a meeting Wednesday with Democrat House members, setting down her microphone and telling attendees, “Well, if you’re not going to listen to me, I’m done talking.”
Then, FoxNews.com reported Thursday afternoon that
…Tensions have run high among Democrats in recent days. Apparently fed up with her party’s inability to come together to condemn anti-Semitism in the past week, Pelosi reportedly even dropped her microphone and stormed out of a meeting with junior Democrats on Wednesday, amid fierce disputes over the planning and wording of the resolution.
And, on Thursday, Pelosi offered something of a strained excuse for the 37-year-old Omar, saying at a news conference, “I do not believe that she understood the full weight of the words.”
The final text of the resolution reflected the Democrats’ deep internal divisions on the matter. It began by rejecting the “perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance.”
Although the resolution stops short of using Omar’s name, that provision was a transparent reference to her remarks at a progressive Washington cafe last week, in which she suggested that Israel supporters were pushing for U.S. politicians to declare “allegiance” to Israel.
The accusation that Jewish politicians could be vulnerable to having “dual loyalties” has been made for centuries in various contexts, and has been seen widely as a religious-based attack intent on undermining their leadership. Tlaib, who was seated next to Omar during her comments at the cafe, made a similar comment in January, tweeting that Senate Republicans were more loyal to Israel than to their own country.
The resolution also “condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States.”
Last month, Omar ignited a bipartisan uproar across the country when she suggested on Twitter that some members of Congress have been paid by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to support Israel. AIPAC is a nonprofit organization that works to influence U.S. policy. (“Let me be really clear,” New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat, said. “Suggesting that support for Israel is beholden to a foreign power is absolutely unacceptable and illogical too.”)
Omar — who also tweeted in 2012 that “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel” — refused to address questions on Wednesday about accusations that she’s anti-Semitic.
Fox News had been told the Democratic caucus was concerned about mentioning Omar by name — a non-starter for many members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Two knowledgable sources said such a scenario could increase security threats against Omar, who is Muslim.
But, Democrats went to great lengths to broaden the resolution’s focus far beyond Omar’s comments. A vote on the resolution was delayed briefly to add a new clause condemning other forms of bigotry, reportedly in response to concerns from members representing minority groups who felt left out.
So, the House Democratic Leadership, including “Madame Speaker” rolled over and played dead. (a million comical lines involving San Fran Nan’s home life just raced between my synapses, but among them are images which I do not need, so, moving on…)
And, showed the entire country just how ineffective, anti-Semitic, and Anti-American that they truly are.
Why didn’t the Speaker of the House issue a strong condemnation of Omar and her anti-Semitism?
All of the evidence garnered through her public appearances clearly demonstrate the fact that she is not the clear thinking Machiavellian genius which all of the Democratic Hierarchy attempted to present her as.
Dementia-riddled “San Fran Nan” Pelosi has been salivating for two years over the opportunity to be Speaker of the House again.
Losing the presidency in 2016 did not smarten up the Democrats at all.
If they go ahead with allowing Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) life Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, and Ilhan to basically run their political party while embracing Radical Islam, anti-Semitism, and Marxism, Pelosi and the rest of the “useful idiots” known as the House Democrats are very likely setting themselves up to go the way of the Whigs.
…And, it couldn’t happen to a “nicer” bunch.
The Democratic Majority in the House’s only hope of reelection at this point is to make Nancy Pelosi abdicate her House Speakership and put in her place someone who will “step hard” on the SJWs and get them under control and who will actually work with President Trump as Former Speaker Newt Gingrich worked with Former President Bill Clinton.
However, that would be a very hard task to accomplish.
There is noting harder that getting a doddering old lady to leave the House she has been in for a very long time.
Democrats just blocked @FoxNews from holding a debate. Good, then I think I’ll do the same thing with the Fake News Networks and the Radical Left Democrats in the General Election debates!
The Democratic National Committee has barred Fox News from hosting its presidential primary debates, prompting the network to urge the party to reconsider.
“We hope the DNC will reconsider its decision to bar Chris Wallace, Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum, all of whom embody the ultimate journalistic integrity and professionalism, from moderating a Democratic presidential debate. They’re the best debate team in the business and they offer candidates an important opportunity to make their case to the largest TV news audience in America, which includes many persuadable voters,” Fox News Senior Vice President Bill Sammon said in a statement.
Earlier in the day, DNC Chairman Tom Perez announced the party would not allow Fox News to host primary debates, claiming they would not be “fair and neutral” forums for the candidates.
“I believe that a key pathway to victory is to continue to expand our electorate and reach all voters,” Perez said in a statement to The Washington Post that cited a critical article in The New Yorker. “That is why I have made it a priority to talk to a broad array of potential media partners, including Fox News. Recent reporting in the New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led me to conclude that the network is not in a position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore, Fox News will not serve as a media partner for the 2020 Democratic primary debates.”
While some Fox News Channel opinion hosts have come under fire for ties to the Trump administration, Wallace, Baier and MacCallum are anchors from the news division who have been praised for their handling of past debates. In 2016, Wallace moderated a presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Reacting to the DNC’s decision, Baier tweeted Wednesday, “That’s really a shame. When it comes to fairness – our news product speaks for itself. We will continue to cover this 2020 race fairly & will continue to invite Democrats- Republicans & Independents on to talk about key issues & substance with our very large viewing audience.”
The DNC announced last month that NBC News will host the first Democratic primary debate of the 2020 election cycle in June. Back in 2016, the Republican National Committee famously pulled out of a planned NBC News Republican primary debate after a similar event on CNBC was criticized for allegedly unfair questions.
The Democratic Party continues to overplay their hand, grossly overestimating their own intelligence while underestimating the intelligence of us Americans who live between the coasts in the Heartland of America.
You would have thought that they would have learned not to do that after their plans for a “Democratic Socialist Paradise” were obliterated on the night of November 8, 2016, when we “forgotten Americans” MADE them remember who we were.
But, no.
Modern American Liberals, especially the Far Left Democratic Party, view themselves as “The Smartest People in the Room”
You can’t tell them a thing. They already know it all.
Therefore, the preservation of their own fragile egos is the reason that they are blocking Fox News from involvement in their Primary Election Debates.
The Main Stream Media is the Propaganda Arm of the Democratic Party
Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders once said after being badgered by a “news reporter” from ABC that the reporter and her colleagues have a “responsibility to provide accurate information” to the public.
“Responsibility”. Therein lies the rub.
The Democratic Party and their Propaganda Arm, the Main Stream Media, have been reduced to personal attacks against a sitting president.
They cannot attack Trump on his Economic Policies, which have been very successful and which have led to a record low unemployment rate for Black Americans.
They cannot attack him on his Foreign Policy, especially after the fantastic way he has handled the Iranians and the North Koreans.
So, they decided instead, to write fictional stories and attempt to give them believability and gravitas by claiming to have received the information for their stories from “anonymous sources”.
And, since those stories were being debunked almost as soon as they were posted, most Americans accurately surmised that the MSM’s “anonymous sources” were the voices inside their own over-sized heads.
The failure of the Democrat-controlled MSM brought them to the point where all they have left is to attempt to upstage the president in his own press conference, as CNN’s Jim Acosta tried to.
It did not work out well for him, did it?
The excuse by DNC Chairman and Political Activist Tom Perez for excluding Fox News from the Debates for an “inappropriate relationship” with President Trump is just another example of Liberal Hypocrisy.
Not only that, but just like their predecessors during the days of the Soviet Union’s Politboro, the “Democratic Socialists”, i.e. Marxists, leading the Far Left Democratic Party are neither interested in a “Fair ” Debate nor are they interested in the truth.
They are of the impression that their base, the Low Information Voters, will believe everything that they tell them, as long as they have their Propaganda Arm, the MSM, asking the questions.
And, average Americans, the same ones who made Donald J. Trump our 45th President, will believe their lies, also, without Fox News’ factual reporting getting in the way.
However, just as they did during the months leading up to the night of November 8, 2016, they are greatly underestimating those of us whom their Presidential Candidate at the time named “Deplorables”.
And, as George Santayana said,
Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Democrats want to use your hard-earned tax dollars to bankroll their next campaign with H.R. 1. The campaign contribution match would force taxpayers to foot the bill for vicious attack ads, robocalls, and targeted ads on social media for candidates they don’t agree with. pic.twitter.com/WwzW1zRLSE
House Democrats are preparing to vote Friday on a sweeping ethics and campaign finance reform package known as the For the People Act, and in response the White House issued its second veto threat of the year on Tuesday, calling the proposal a reckless move that would increase opportunities for rampant voter fraud and chill free speech.
The bill, known as H.R. 1, purportedly aims to eliminate “culture of corruption in Washington” and to reduce the role of money in politics. It would make it easier for citizens to register and vote, tighten election security, and establish a small-donor public matching system in congressional elections.
In a direct shot at Trump, the bill would require presidents to release at least 10 years’ worth of tax returns. The bill also would ban executive-branch officials from lobbying their old agency for two years after they leave government, and reauthorize and enhance the Office of Government Ethics, which has clashed with Trump.
Additionally, the Act would require groups like the Chamber of Commerce that spend more than $10,000 on political messaging to disclose the identity of their contributors who gave more than $10,000 — prompting several business groups to raise concerns about their ability to communicate with politicians.
“The $10,000 donor threshold appears designed to target business organizations while largely sparing labor organizations from disclosure of their funding sources, which are typically union dues that are far less than $10,000,” Neil Bradley, the executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business lobbying group, told reporters on Tuesday.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, has long pronounced the reform measure dead on arrival in the Senate, where it faces long odds. And the White House, which has already vowed to veto the ongoing effort by Congress to strike down his national emergency declaration over border wall funding, issued a statement Tuesday outlining the administration’s problems with the legislation.
“If H.R. 1 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend he veto the bill,” the statement flatly concluded. Trump has not yet vetoed any legislation.
One of the measure’s most notable provisions would restore protections included in the 1965 Voting Rights Act and guard against efforts by state officials to purge voting rolls.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a veteran of the civil rights movement, called voting “the most powerful, non-violent instrument of transformation we have in our democracy,” and said efforts to make it easier to vote — not harder — were crucial. “I truly believe deep in my heart that the way votes were not counted and purged in Georgia and Florida and other states changed the outcome of the last election” to harm Democrats, Lewis said. “That must never happen again.”
However, the White House said it saw that provision as an invitation to voter fraud.
“H.R. 1 would prohibit commonsense efforts to clean up voting-rolls to limit opportunities for voting fraud,” the White House said. “The bill would also require States to adopt online registration, same-day registration, and automatic voter registration, thus imposing a one-size-fits-all standard for weighing the competing values of voter access and voting integrity.”
The White House statement continued: “Furthermore, H.R. 1 would enhance the powers of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman and reduce the number of FEC members from six to five, thus increasing the chances that the FEC becomes a partisan entity with undue power to shape and regulate elections nationwide.”
Other objections raised by the Trump administration centered on the bill’s advance of political redistricting mandates, as well as its possible effects on First Amendment rights.
…”The legislation would force States to create unelected bodies and then delegate redistricting decisions to them,” the White House’s statement said in response. “This would suppress the voices of our Nation’s citizens and cut off a nationwide debate on how best to pursue fair and ethical redistricting processes throughout the country.”
…”H.R. 1 also chills free speech by creating requirements that would limit the ability of Americans to participate in advocacy without undue compliance costs and without fear of public reprisals,” the White House countered. “The bill would establish costly and unnecessary programs to finance political campaigns, and force American taxpayers to finance Federal candidates they may not support.”
But Maryland Democratic Rep. John Sarbanes said Democrats were “responding directly to the American people and what they want to see in our democracy,” as shown by the election results in the 2018 midterms.
Calling the bill “transformative,” Sarbanes said in January it will “strengthen our democracy and return political power to the people by making it easier, not harder, to vote, ending the dominance of big money in our politics and ensuring that public officials actually serve the public.”
“You could stamp on this thing ‘McConnell-rejected,’ and it would immediately give it more credibility,” Sarbanes said. The legislation was not built for McConnell or any lawmaker, Sarbanes added: “This was built for the public.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also touted the bill, saying it would “restore integrity to government, so that people can have confidence that government works for the public interest, not the special interests.”
On ethics, members of Congress would be barred from serving on corporate boards and could not use taxpayer dollars to settle employment discrimination cases. But the White House argued that those provisions would unnecessarily impede the work of the executive branch with burdensome regulations.
Sarbanes and other supporters said the election security measures are particularly important as the 2020 election nears.
Predicting “historic turnout” in upcoming elections, Sarbanes said officials must not only encourage increased participation, but guard against attempts at sabotage from foreign and domestic adversaries.
“If we’re not ready for that in all the ways [the legislation] seeks to ensure, then we could end up with a train wreck,” he said.
Having the House Democrats sponsor a “Financial Reform” and “Ethics” bill is like having Stormy McDaniel write a book endorsing chastity.
Nancy Pelosi and her husband are worth $22 million, thanks to “shrewd real estate investments in California.
Gee. I wonder where they received their “tips” from?
Freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Saikat Chakrabarti, her chief of staff are presently being accused of violating campaign finance laws to the tune of almost $1,000,000.
Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar are spending their time in office attacking the faith of 75% of Americans who proclaim Jesus Christ as their Personal Savior.
Meanwhile, Pelosi and her convocation of “Pharisees” are apparently going to spend the next two years wasting American Taxpayers’ money trying to get the man who average Americans voted into office…out of office.
Also, if they are truly interested in “Ethical Behavior and Finance Reform” are they going to retroactively take away the money which Hillary Clinton and her husband’s Foundation made from all of those foreign governments who pay them money to curry favor with the then–Secretary of State?
I am always writing about how the Liberals in the Far Left Democratic Party believe themselves to be the smartest people in the room and above all the rest of us Americans.
However, the House Democrats have completely lost it.
This bill has the all of the sincerity of a book titled “The Michael Moore Diet Plan”.
If the House Dems do not wake up and smell what they are shoveling, like Captain Ahab in “Moby Dick”, the Great While Whale that they are obsessed with,President Donald J. Trump, is going to drag their hopes of regaining presidency down into a watery grave for several decades.
And, considering their present Marxist Political Ideology and severely impaired mental faculties, that would be a very good thing.
House Democrats are drafting a resolution condemning anti-Semitism and plan to introduce it on the floor later this week in the wake of controversial comments made by freshman Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.
While it is not clear whether the resolution will specifically condemn Omar’s remarks, a senior House Democratic aide told Fox News that a draft of the resolution was worked on over the weekend by the staff for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi along with those of Reps. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., and Ted Deutch, D-Fla.
Despite only being in Congress since January, Omar has been the center of controversy over numerous remarks she’s made that have been labelled anti-Semitic.
“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said in reference to Israel. “I want to ask why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil fuel industries, or big pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobbying movement that is influencing policy.”
Amid widespread criticism from a number of Omar’s congressional colleagues, the freshman lawmaker chose to double down on her stance.
“I have not mischaracterized our relationship with Israel, I have questioned it and that has been clear from my end,” she tweeted. “I am told every day that I am anti-American if I am not pro-Israel. I find that to be problematic and I am not alone. I just happen to be willing to speak up on it and open myself to attacks.”
Engel, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Friday that it was “unacceptable and deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens because of their political views, including support for the U.S.-Israel relationship.”
The senior Democratic aide told Fox News that while the text of the resolution is not final, lawmakers plan to present it on Wednesday. The aide added that the resolution was drafted well before the Anti-Defamation League sent a letter to Pelosi requesting a resolution and that the ADL was aware of the resolution before they sent the letter.
In the letter to Pelosi, ADL Chief Executive Jonathan Greenblatt said that Omar’s suggestion that Jews have a divided loyalty between the U.S. and Israel is “a vile anti-Semitic slur that has been used to harass, marginalize and persecute the Jewish people for centuries.”
Greenblatt goes on to condemn the attacks Omar has faced for her own Islamic faith, but that a congressional resolution would “send the unambiguous message that the United States Congress is no place for hate.”
So, the Dems are going to punish Rep. Omar indirectly.
Sheesh.
Ever since my collegiate days, from 1976-1980, when I was a Radio News Director, I have watched with stunned incredulity, as the American Liberal Political Ideology and its adherents, have vocally castigated the country of Israel for defending themselves against the violent factions of nomadic tribes , who wish for nothing else than their annihilation of both the country of Israel and their citizenry.
The irony of their naiveté, is the fact that, in the 1960’s, American Liberals were among some of Israel’s strongest supporters. However, as of this writing, they continue to blatantly back the Palestinians and the Terrorist Organization known as Hamas.
Opposing God’s Chosen People and supporting the historically nomadic people that call themselves “Palestinians” fits with Modern Liberals’ Political Ideology, which views modern political struggles as “Class Warfare”, being waged between race and ethnic groups. Liberals believe that the predominantly white West is somehow subjugating the non-white rest of the world. This viewpoint is an extension of the class-based, rich versus poor, categories, which they intentionally classify people in, following the example of their fallen messiah, Former President Barack Hussein Obama (mm mmm mmmm).
However, not only is Representative Omar a Far Left Radical, she is also most definitely a Radical Islamist.
Rep. Omar’s anti-Semitism has been well-known for years.
Omar has long been a harsh critic of Israel. On November 16, 2012 – just a few days after Gaza-based Hamas terrorists had launched more than 150 deadly rockets into the Jewish state, prompting an Israeli military response – she tweeted that “the apartheid Israeli regime” had “hypnotized the world” in order to conceal its own “evil doings.”
Omar served as a senior policy aide to Minneapolis City Council member Andrew Johnson from 2013-15. During her tenure in that position, Omar acknowledged that she was a friend of several young men who had joined al-Shabab, a Somali jihadist terror group allied with al-Qaeda, several years earlier. “They were happy young men,” said Omar. “And then at some point, something happened. And that is what needs to be researched and studied. What is happening to make them feel disconnected from a community that has birthed them, that has nurtured them?”
Over the years, Omar has given multiple interviews to the Arab-American television host Ahmed Tharwat, who characterizes Israel as the “Jewish ISIS” and has compared members of Hamas to victims of the Holocaust. In the wake of a 2013 Islamic terrorist bombing that killed nearly 70 people in a Kenyan shopping mall, Omar and Tharwat discussed how news of that attack may have affected the way Americans were treating Muslims in the United States. When Tharwat asserted that “terrorism is a reaction” to injustices inflicted by the U.S. and other antagonists, Omar agreed: “Yes…. Nobody wants to face how the actions of the other people that are involved in the world have contributed to the rise of the radicalization and the rise of terrorist acts. Usually most people want to not look internal and see what their actions that makes another react. For us [Americans], it’s always ‘I must have not done anything. Why is it happening to me?’ Nobody wants to take accountability of how these are byproducts of the actions of our involvement in other people’s affairs.”
Of course, Rep. Omar is also supported by CAIR – The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a very vocal organizations which, while representing itself as being Moderate, refused to blame Osama bin Laden for 9/11 and claim that Palestinian Suicide Terror Attacks are a justifiable reaction to Israeli brutality.
Why was this vile woman placed on the House Committee on Foreign Relations?
That is as stupid as the United Nations placing countries known for producing Radical Islamic Terrorism on their Security Council.
It is not only time to remove Rep. Omar from the Foreign Relations Committee, she needs to be booted out of the House of Representatives.
However, the Far Left Democrats will not follow either of my suggestions because, in their hearts, they are as anti-Semitic as Rep. Omar is….and as anti-American.
Having more experience being professional politicians, they just know when to keep their mouths shut.
“Well certainly he (President Trump) said that, that he is going to represent Americans. He said that over and over again, and I think that we will continue to evaluate that. I think that the nation supports — I believe that’s his intent, but I think also we have to consistently engage with pressure, public pressure. It doesn’t happen automatically. My father and his team understood that, did that, and I think that Americans are prepared to do that.” – Martin Luther King III, when asked by CNN’s Jim Acosta about President Trump, January 16, 2017
Former Secretary of State and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton offered a stark view of the country on Sunday, comparing the current “crisis in our democracy” to the turbulence that occurred amid the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.
Speaking during a reception in Selma, Ala. to mark the 54th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday” and to receive the International Unity Award at the Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King Unity Breakfast, Clinton said that the United States is facing a “full-fledged crisis in our democracy.”
“This is a time, my friends, when fundamental rights, civic virtue, freedom of the press, the rule of law, truth, facts and reason are under assault,” Clinton said, according to the Hill.
Clinton is one of a number of Democratic leaders in Selma this weekend for the ceremonies surrounding the “Bloody Sunday” anniversary.
Not to be confused with the “Bloody Sunday” massacre in Northern Ireland in 1972, the events being remembered in Alabama occurred on March 7, 1965, when peaceful demonstrators were beaten back by Alabama state troopers as they attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. It was a moment that galvanized support for the passage of the Voting Rights Act later that year.
While Clinton did not specifically mention President Trump in her speech, she said that “racist and white supremacist views” have been buoyed by the current administration and warned that civil and voting rights were under attack in the U.S.
“To anyone who has ever wondered what you would have done during those defining moments that we read about in history books — whether you would have risked arrest to demand votes for women or bled on the Edmund Pettus bridge to demand voting rights for all — the answer is what you are doing now could be as important as anything that anyone has done before,” Clinton said.
Voter suppression emerged as a key issue in the 2018 midterm elections in states such as Georgia and North Carolina, where a Republican congressional candidate was accused of rigging the contest there through absentee ballots. House Democrats signaled they plan to make ballot access a priority in the new Congress, introducing legislation aimed at protecting voting rights in 2020 and beyond.
Clinton, who lost to Trump in the 2016 presidential election and has remained a staunch critic of the current administration, was one of a number of Democrats in Alabama over the weekend. 2020 presidential hopefuls Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. and Cory Booker, D-N.J., are also slated to speak in Selma.
Okay…here we go…
First of all, America is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a mob-ruled Democracy.
Moving on…
“The politics of division” have been in place for decades. The last time the two political parties even came close to getting along was during the Clinton Presidency, when Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich convinced “Bubba” that he would go down in history if he agreed to balance the budget.
Things started to get really ugly during the “Dubya” Presidency, once 9/11 had been put in the rear view window by the Democrats, who decided they had had enough of political unity for the sake of the country.
The problem was, President George W. Bush refused to fight back. He just stood there and let the Democrats and their Propaganda Arm run all over him, to the point where he could not accomplish the things he was put in office to do..
Then, when King Barack The First ascended to the throne of “The Regime”, “The politics of division” became not just a fact of life, it became a Presidential Political Strategy.
The racial division in our country was wider on Obama’s last day as president, than it was on his first day. Our political ideologies moved further apart as well, as Liberals, buoyed by having one of their own in the White House, moved further to the Left Side of the Political Spectrum, taking the Democratic Party with them.
And, in that spirit, the Democratic Party nominated a Far-Left Ideologue in Hillary Clinton for their choice as the next President of the United States.
However, even after cloaking herself in a mask of Political Moderation, her true nature revealed itself and the American people rejected her in spite of the best efforts of the Main Stream Media, who were acting as the Democratic Party’s Propaganda Machine.
The thought of another 4 years under the failed policies of Barack Hussein Obama, being delivered to us in the shrill voice and demeanor of Hillary Clinton, was too much for average Americans to bear.
Standing up on our hind legs, we elected American Entrepreneur and Businessman Donald J. Trump, a “rank outsider”, as President of the United States of America.
Now, as President, he is working hard to fulfill his Campaign Promises, while taking more flak than the Allied Bombers did in World War II over Dresden, Germany.
But, more on that in a moment.
Despite his best efforts to radically change America into just another country, Barack Hussein Obama found out that the strength of America does not come from our political parties, nor from the area known as the Beltway which surrounds and includes the Halls of Power in Washington, D.C.
Rather, America’s strength comes from the faith, which anchors the daily struggles of average Americans, who, relying on our Creator, the lessons which we learned from our family, including our parents, our own common sense, and the sweat of our brow, are living our lives trying to provide a better life for our children and grandchildren, while being grateful for this Sovereign Nation which God and our Founders bequeathed to us.
The 44th President of the United States of America never understood this.
Nor do those professional politicians who belong to the Washington Establishment Wing of both Political Parties.
During the same 2017 interview which I quoted from earlier, MLK III said…
“I think my father would be concerned about the fact that there are 50 million fact there are 50 or 60 million people living in poverty and somehow, we’ve got to create the climate for all boats to be lifted. In America, with a multi-trillion dollar economy — $20 trillion economy almost, it’s insanity we have poor people in this nation. That’s unacceptable and when we work together, we know we can roll up our sleeves. There’s nothing we as Americans can’t do. Thank you very much.”
On February 5th, 2019, less than a month ago, Breitbart.com reported that
Prior to Trump’s presidency, African-American unemployment had never sunk below 7 percent. In fact, it has rarely been below 8 percent since the government began keeping records in 1972. When Trump was sworn into office in January of 2016, it stood at 8.8 percent.
While Trump has been president, unemployment among African-Americans has steadily fallen. It has now been below 7 percent since February 2018.
President Trump did not start the fire of the “politics of division”.
He was bequeathed it as a “parting gift” from the previous Administration and Administrations before it.
And, those who make their living from a nation divided, like Failed Democrat Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton, are doing their utmost to keep the 45th President from uniting us.
Because they know that the son of Civil Rights Icon Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was absolutely correct.
“…when we work together, we know we can roll up our sleeves. There’s nothing we as Americans can’t do.”
I hope the UMC vote will serve as an encouragement to other denominations to stand for God’s Truth & resist agendas that compromise & disregard the clear teaching of Scripture. I challenge every denomination, church, pastor, & member to stand unwavering with the Word of God. 2/2
Progressives maintain a “religion of social justice” that leads them to attack Christians who live their faith openly, according to a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Allie Beth Stuckey, host of the Christian podcast “Relatable” who oversees “The Conservative Millennial” blog, was part of a panel Thursday that focused on the value of religious liberty and its contribution to overall freedom.
“There are people who say that secularism or the denial of religion, even the repressing of religion, will lead to more freedom, it will lead to more tolerance, it will lead to more inclusion,” said Stuckey.
“Obviously, that’s an ironic statement in and of itself. But there’s actually another religion that is taking over, that is dominating, that’s not a lack of religion, it’s a new religion of postmodernism, of moral relativism.”
Stuckey went on to argue that Americans who believe that religion should be practiced at home or in private do not lack religion, but rather have “donned the religion of social justice.”
Allie Beth Stuckey, host of the Christian podcast “Relatable” who oversees “The Conservative Millennial” blog, speaking as part of a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, February 28, 2019. | YouTube/NBC News “They’ve actually donned the religion of progressivism where intersectionality is one of their key doctrines and identity politics is part of their worship,” she continued.
“So what we’re seeing is not this advancement of atheism or this advancement of agnosticism or secularism. It’s the religion of progressivism and social justice and moral relativism that says ‘this is the religion that needs to dominate in order for us to be tolerant.’”
“And what we see throughout history, and what we’re already seeing now is that progressivism is not a tolerant religion.”
In a contentious meeting years in the making, the United States’s third-largest faith community voted to emphasize its opposition to same-sex marriage and gay clergy — a decision that was cheered by conservatives in the global church, especially in Africa, but was deeply disappointing to many Americans who were eager for change.
Many American ministers in the United Methodist Church already perform same-sex marriages and approve of the ordination of LGBT people as clergy, although the Protestant church’s rules officially forbid these marriages and ordinations. (A celibate gay person may be ordained in the UMC.)
Many Methodists hoped that the church would amend those rules this week. Instead, a group of more than 800 clergy and lay leaders from around the world voted to affirm the church’s traditional view of sexuality — and to punish disobedient clergy more harshly than before.
“The United Methodist Church will very soon lose an entire generation of leadership in the United States,” lamented Kimberly Ingram, speaking at the meeting on behalf of Methodist seminaries and theological schools, which had argued that their students strongly approve of including LGBT people fully in the church. “The future of the United Methodist Church in this country is at stake.”
But presented with several options during a four-day special session in St. Louis on the future of the church, the delegates picked the “traditional plan,” with 53 percent voting in favor. Other options would have allowed local churches to choose their stance on sexuality, or would have split the church into separate denominations.
Before I begin, please allow me to be honest with you.
I left the United Methodist Church at the age of 39, when I realized that, thanks to those in control of the denomination, whose headquarters was in the Northeast, some parts of the UMC were beginning to value secularism more than it did the Word of God.
How did I come to that conclusion?
I walked into a Sunday School class and a theology student was teaching out of a book titled, “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalists”.
While I hated to leave the Choir Director whom I had sang under for 20 years, like Belshazzar, I saw the writing upon the wall.
That was a little over 20 years ago.
Now, after a long journey down a road filled with Liberals’ “religion of social justice”, the United Methodist Church stands on a precipice, looking down into a fiery abyss.
The choice which the UMC faced this past week, and which other denominations, both Catholic and Protestant must face as well, is whether to believe and to preach the fundamental Word of God or to place their faith and doctrine upon the shifting sands of popular culture.
Right now, I can hear the Liberals who read my posts in order to raise their blood pressure beyond their usual catharsis, saying,
Well, what’s wrong with embracing the lifestyle of the LGBT “community” and allowing them to have leadership roles and to get married within the church?
Christ loved and embraced everyone.
Indeed He did.
Jesus was often found in the company of sinners…but not because He accepted their sins. He was with them because he loved them and loathed their sin. He was there to redeem them through His Loving Grace, so that they might repent and find salvation through Him.
When secular idolatry and popular culture is worshiped and celebrated, instead of Jesus Christ’s victory on the cross through His Blood as the expiation for the sins of the whole world, those who believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God have a decision to make: either stay and worship man’s word or attend a Bible-believing Church.
While Evangelicals, such as myself, welcome all sinners, including gays, into our churches.
We do so because we view the church as a “Hospital for Sinners”, which we all are.
The Good News is that we are all sinners saved by His Grace and, as Christians, we are not perfect…just FORGIVEN.
Liberals, through their “religion of social justice”, view the church as the latest “Shrine in which to Worship Political Correctness”.
The problem with their belief is that God always has the last word.
From the halls of Congress to the presidential campaign trail, Democratic moderates are beginning to push back against the wave of liberal energy and shoot-the-moon policy ideas that have captured the party’s imagination over the last two months.
They worry that the sweeping proposals and hardball tactics of liberal firebrands could alienate centrist voters in the 2020 election, even as they hold out hope that Democratic primary voters, focused on defeating President Donald Trump, will check the party’s move to the left.
The moderates’ concerns came to a head this week when one of the newest Democratic stars appeared to threaten her colleagues if they did not toe the liberal line, raising the specter of a cleave in the party between moderates and purists similar to a long-standing divide in the Republican Party.
At a closed-door meeting of House Democrats on Thursday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said some of her colleagues could find themselves “on a list” of primary election targets, after they voted for a Republican amendment requiring that undocumented immigrants who try to buy guns be reported to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, according to people in the room who were not authorized to comment publicly.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., a co-chairman of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, said he has confronted party leaders about such threats, which have also come from the Justice Democrats, a liberal group that backed Ocasio-Cortez’s primary campaign.
“Being unified means ensuring that Democrats aren’t primary-ing other sitting Democrats,” Gottheimer said. “Since when is it okay to put you on a Nixonian list? We need to have a big tent in our party or we won’t keep the House or win the White House.”
Some warned that imposing purity tests could lead to a Democratic version of the conservative tea party revolt that transformed the GOP in recent years. That surge has brought Republicans new energy and new voters, but it’s also cost the GOP some congressional races and legislative victories.
Several Democratic presidential candidates, including many of the early entrants, have quickly endorsed sweeping liberal policies, including a Medicare-for-all health plan, a “Green New Deal” to combat climate change, and reparations for African Americans. Recently, however, some prospective candidates have been offering an alternative vision.
Sen. Michael F. Bennet (D- Colo.), who is contemplating a presidential run, said U.S. politics needs to return to a more civil place. He referred to the House Freedom Caucus, a group of purist Republicans that often opposes legislative compromises.
“We don’t have to settle for disgraceful politics. We don’t have to settle for being as terrible as Donald Trump,” Bennet said during a visit to Iowa on Feb. 21. “We don’t have to settle for Freedom Caucus tactics – those guys are tyrants. We don’t have to accept that.”
Liberal Democrats, including many new to Capitol Hill or national politics, argue that the party has been too timid, caving to Republican pressure and failing to inspire voters with calls for sweeping change. The surge of new voters in the midterm elections, they say, shows the excitement and support generated by such proposals.
The centrists counter that liberal ideas and candidates have more power online and among the grass roots than at the ballot box and that the passions will likely fade in coming months, both in Congress and the presidential campaign.
John Anzalone, an Alabama-based Democratic pollster, said the perception that the party’s primary voters are enthusiastically liberal is not based on data.
“There is, without a doubt, a myth that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez somehow represents the narrative of Democratic primary voters in the country,” Anzalone said. “Almost half of them identify themselves as moderates or conservative.”
Really?
Are these “Moderate Democrats” all bound and gagged and being kept in a bunker somewhere?
From San Fran Nan Pelosi and Chuck “U.” Schumer on down, Marxism is being fully embraced in the name of “Democratic Socialism”. “Political compromise” took the last plane out of town a long time ago.
Did you know that there is an actual organization named the Democratic Socialists of America?
In a document titled “Where We Stand,” DSA outlines in detail its political perspectives. Here is an excerpt…
“Social redistribution—the shift of wealth and resources from the rich to the rest of society—will require: massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor and the public sector, in order to provide the main source of new funds for social programs, income maintenance and infrastructure rehabilitation, and a massive shift of public resources from the military (the main user of existing discretionary funds) to civilian uses.”
Sound hauntingly familiar, “comrades”?
Remember when the Former (Thank God) President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, spoke about “sharing the wealth” to a plumber named Joe during his 2008 Presidential Campaign?
One hundred years ago in Russia, a revolution was based on that very idea.
The unworkable theory that “Democratic Socialism” is based on is known as Marxism.
No government which has taken it as their political philosophy has ever flourished. The government grew and those working within it became rich while the “Proletariat” or average working citizens starved, giving all they had “for the good of the State”.
For quite a while now, I have been referring to those of the Far Left Democratic Party who have been doing every thing they can to disrupt and interfere with the success of President Donald J. Trump and the comeback of the Greatest Country on the face of the Earth, as the “New Bolsheviks”.
To be immodest, it looks like I nailed that one.
These new “useful idiots” are so “out there” that they have the Old Guard of the Democratic Party running scared, allowing them to run the party and their political campaign strategies for not only the next two years but the 2020 Presidential Elections as well.
As America has witnessed, the Democratic Party has been moving further and further to the left side of the Political Spectrum for decades now.
So, it is really no surprise that they have become which they have been whining about for several years: fascists.
But they have not become just any kind of fascists. They have become Marxist Fascists, extolling the “benevolent goodness” of an all-powerful Central Government who will take care of everyone from cradle to grave.
And, those who refuse to give up their individual freedom as guaranteed to us by our Constitution are to be shunned and ridiculed as “intolerant, ignorant hillbillies”.
As I have written before, America is involved in an internal struggle, a “Civil War”, if you will, for the very soul of our Sovereign Nation.
However, like the Marxists who have declared “war” on America and her citizens before, this new generation of “useful idiots” will find it very hard to win the hearts of average Americans.
For you see, we know Who gave us this country. America was built on a Solid Rock.
24 “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. – Matthew 7:24-25
And, as I wrote yesterday, the “Democratic Socialists” don’t even know which restroom to use.
Kingsjester's Blog 