"Stop Trump?" Freedom of Speech even on the Right only for the Politically Correct

Shutting people up who disagree with them is such an obvious tactic of the Left what's amazing is that they have no conscience about it. They can preach freedom of speech based on the Constitution out of one side of their mouths and deny it to their opponents out of the other. Their verbal assaults alone seem to have the objective of intimidating a person into silence.

Since we're all "morons" for thinking as we do, there's certainly no room there for a civil conversation about the issues.  If we're always only motivated by bias or prejudice of some kind, whether racial or religious or cultural or whatever, that pretty much ends the possibility of our ever saying anything they'd take seriously doesn't it?  They of course have all reason on their side, we have none.

And that is how they justify denying us the right of free speech.  If nothing we say is to be regarded as intelligent thoughtful reasoned opinion, what recourse is possible but to obliterate it completely?   Either by excoriating language that would break bones and draw blood if it could, or by "nonviolent" protests that aim to shut up conservative speakers, which is standard Leftist totalitarianism, what we see in the Left is the policies of Communism in action, and Fascism too for that matter.  Shut us up, they get to define what's right and true and we're not it.

I expect this from the Left, but when the Republicans organize themselves to "Stop Trump" I'm rather stunned.  Stop the man who has attracted so much support from conservatives?  Wouldn't you think  they'd be ashamed of their own failure to win us instead of trying to bully out a "victory" in spite of us?  What do they think is going to come of all those who have supported Trump if they succeed in shutting him up?  We're going to rally to THEIR cause?  Are they going to be surprised if Hillary is the next President or would they actually prefer her to Trump?  Really?

Here's a good article from Front Page on what's at stake if we tolerate these attacks on free speech:

Arrest the Thugs

Trump’s opponents, both Republican and Democrat, and the Obama administration should realize what’s at stake – if, that is, they have any interest in preserving the American tradition of non-violent political disagreement. The unseemly haste of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and John Kasich to blame Trump’s rhetoric for the violent shutdown of his Chicago rally is extraordinarily disappointing: they should realize that the same violence can and will be turned against them if they stray too far from the thugs’ idea of what constitutes acceptable political discourse.

Trump Embattled

The problem with Trump, of course, is that he's not reliably conservative, and despite his very sincere-sounding promises there's always reason for caution when it comes to political promises.  We've heard lots of promises before that never materialized.

But what's different about him is his aggressive passion for issues that matter to us on the right. He says what we've been feeling and he says it with the same anger we've been feeling, and above all he doesn't shrivel when he's accused of the whole leftist arsenal of political correctness.

It's sad to think there are so many Republican leaders now determined to get rid of him, the best thing we've got, however imperfect, better than any of them, and better than any of the other candidates if only because of his complete lack of the wimp factor we've become so used to over the last decade.

I liked Ben Carson for a while too, but by now he's shown too much complete ignorance of things that do matter in spite of his appeal as another non-establishment candidate that tells it like it is. When I read that he thinks it's "unconstitutional" to oppose the acceptance of Muslim refugees just because they're Muslims, that was the end of his appeal for me.  The very reason for caution about admitting Muslims is that they are Muslim, there is no other reason, because although many of them don't fully follow their religion or even fully understand it, it's always there as a potential radicalizer for anyone who might be moved in that direction some time down the road.   And our Constitution does not protect foreigners, let alone potential enemies.  The refugee situation needs some extremely careful attention and at the moment I don't know what direction to go with it.  I'm glad to hear there are Christians working among them.

 For all I know Trump has similar weird blind spots though.  Although he finally came through with a very rousing and reassuring speech on behalf of Israel, I still have to wonder where that idea came from that supporting Israel would be an insult to the Palestinians.  He didn't explain that, and who knows if it might suddenly surface again when he's in the middle of dealings with the Middle East?  The pro-Israel rhetoric was very relieving, though.  I want to believe it.

There are some great articles getting at all the pros and cons about these things at Front Page Magazine.  One of the themes is that the election is about passion and caring about the nation, and knowledge about the issues is almost secondary.  Unfortunately perhaps, that's true.  What we want this time around is no-holds-barred commitment to what matters to us.  As one of the articles points out, the Democrats treat elections as war and try to destroy their opponents.  That is certainly how it feels.  To fight that sort of thing needs verbal power of a sort we don't usually get from the Republicans.

Anyway I'm praying for Trump, that some of his rough edges will be smoothed a bit, that if possible he'll learn how to be diplomatic without losing his main appeal as a no-compromising defender of the issues the right cares about most, and if that's not possible I'll take him as he is.  Also for wisdom of course, perhaps he could even learn to pray himself, and certainly for good advisors, lots of good advisors. My prayer was answered for a strong positive position on Israel. If enough of us pray in faith I have no doubt we can move all the mountains we need to move in this election.

Trump and the Christian

I'm not completely decided about Trump, but since many Christians are taking sides against him I thought I should ponder the situation and give an opinion.

Even at this point, though, my opinion is pretty clear. I might be talked out of it I suppose but what I think right now is clear enough:

A Christian can't vote for someone who advocates policies that violate God's Law, such as abortion, fetal stem cell research, gay marriage etc. If I find out he supports issues I consider to be contrary to Christian standards then I couldn't vote for him.

As for the man's many sins, it would be nice to have a squeaky-clean one-woman man with no adulteries or divorces, but although character is important I don't think it should be a barrier to voting for him.  At least he seems pretty stable at the moment.

What about the bullying style? My feeling about that is that it's geared to the situation he's challenging. In other words I suspect it's a strategy more than it is a personality trait. That is, he's up against Leftist political correctness which answers all conservative concerns with personal accusations of racism or Islamophobia or xenophobia or homophobia or prejudice, or hatred or bigotry and so on. All personal smears meant to discredit and intimidate instead of responses to the issues. Trump's aggressive rebuffs to Leftist arguments in general seem to be the only thing that's ever worked against that kind of tactic. He doesn't back down in the face of those personal smears. I think that's admirable, or at least impressively effective.

The main thing I've heard that gives me pause about supporting him is that he isn't on Israel's side, which he thinks insults the Palestinians, which shows an abysmal lack of understanding of the Middle East situation that could turn me against him. Perhaps he can be persuaded out of it if he gets to know more about the true history of the region.

He has other flaws and I suppose I might eventually have to vote against him for those or others as I find out about them, but at the moment his attitude toward Israel is the only potential barrier.

So at the moment I'm for him. He's the most effective voice out there for issues that concern conservatives such as national security, illegal immigration and so on. It would be very nice to have a President who cared about protecting the nation instead of protecting our enemies against us.

Sometimes I think Trump is God's mercy to the nation. Other times I wonder if he's a test. I hope it's the former, but either way he's the most interesting thing to happen to politics in a long time.

Resisting Obamacare

Jan Markell on her Saturday radio program, The Progressive Dream that is America's Nightmare interviews Twila Brase of Citizens' Council for Health Freedom, who says we do have legal options to Obamacare and we don't have to enroll in it. Her website is full of information about this.

The Nice Cardinal Dolan So Nicely Advocates Killing America

UPDATE:

Anybody remember Jesuit "Professor of Constitutional Law" Louis Michael Seidman who advocated scrapping the Constitution a little over a year ago? Anybody care? Isn't there a pattern here?

So far I haven't seen him identified as a Jesuit but he teaches at Georgetown University which IS Jesuit, and here's an article at their website about Seidman's views on the Constitution.

There's plenty more stuff on him through Google. 

The amendment to the Constitution I would suggest is incorporating the laws of the Colonies against allowing Catholics any political power in the United States.  I'd also prohibit them from founding and teaching in universities.  Too late of course, the wolf is in the sheepfold, has been for a LONG time, idiots that we are.

Good thing nobody reads my blogs or I'd soon be dead. 


earlier post======================================

Happened to check out Fox News online earlier, and happened to see this headline, Catholics 'Outmarketed' on Gay Marriage, wondered what on earth THAT means so I read the article.  And I still don't know for sure what it means.

NEW YORK – New York's Cardinal Timothy Dolan says the Roman Catholic Church has been "outmarketed" on the issue of gay marriage and has been "caricatured as being anti-gay."

I have to suppose he means that the RCC's position on traditional marriage is not getting good PR these days but the way he's phrased it I can't be sure of that at all.  If that's what he's saying, at the same time he doesn't want it to mean that the RCC is "anti-gay" although of course it has to mean that they treat homosexual acts as sin.  Again I can't really be sure.   It sounds like Jesuitical gobbledygook to me, which gets even more confusing as I read on.

Asked if he thinks gay marriage will eventually be legalized or opposed by a backlash, he said:

"I think I'd be a Pollyanna to say that there doesn't seem to be kind of a stampede to do this," Dolan said. "I regret that."

Excuse me?  There ISN'T a stampede to do WHAT?  To oppose gay marriage by a backlash?  And it makes him a Pollyanna to say that?  That part I can't make sense of at all.  But I have to suppose he means something along these lines although I must say the way it actually reads says something different:  it actually sounds like he regrets that there isn't a stampede to legalize gay marriage.  I have to assume he can't mean that but that's how it reads to me. 

Is it possible that he WANTS to be confusing, even misunderstood, so that he can't be blamed for saying something outright that the RCC officially opposes while at the same time perhaps aligning himself with this current Pope who recently said "Who am I to judge" about homosexuality.  Is he taking lessons from the Jesuits on how to say something so that he can't be pinned down, so that you could think MAYBE he even supports gay marriage although if you said so in so many words he could tell you you're wrong?  Or am I just letting my anti-Catholicism carry me away?

But really, I don't know how the interviewer could have continued in the face of such gobbledygook.   This interview is going to be aired on Sunday on "Meet the Press" by the way.  I don't have television but maybe I can catch it online.

I'm sure the RCC wouldn't want to be "caricatured as anti-gay" since after all this is the "Church," you understand, that has had scandal after scandal over homosexual priests molesting young boys, and covered it up, even moving their priests to other parishes where they can continue to molest boys because nobody knows who they are. 

Yet the RCC still receives respect and admiration from the press.

But then the conversation switches to Obama's health care mess.

On another divisive issue, Dolan said the Catholic Church has long championed comprehensive health care, but he said U.S. Catholic bishops cannot support the Affordable Care Act as long as it includes coverage for abortion.

He said the bishops started "bristling" at the legislation pushed by President Barack Obama because "it's excluding the undocumented immigrant and it's excluding the unborn baby."

Aw, doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart, that the RCC cares about unborn babies so much -- and indeed they have a reputation for being against abortion, so well have they crafted their image in that respect, despite some very dark history that many Catholics know nothing about, let alone the rest of us:  that sexual license between nuns and priests in the convents over many centuries produced many babies that were summarily murdered by soft-hearted mother superiors as soon as they were born.  There are references to these things in many OLD books, some of which I've listed at the Catholicism blog, (Washington in the Lap of Rome comes to mind and you can find others at Chris Pinto's sites) although history books over the last century or so have been scrubbed clean of such facts.   You can even find the testimony given in the 1950s of Sister Charlotte, a nun who escaped from a closed convent to tell of priests sexually exploiting nuns among other enormities --  Can it be that Cardinal Dolan doesn't know about these things?  It's remotely possible I suppose.

But beyond that his concern for "undocumented immigrants," that is ILLEGAL aliens, he thinks should be covered by this health care plan, ought to get your hackles up if you care at all about the laws of the United States.  Leftists and Catholics WANT a bazillion illegals in this country as part of the plan to destroy the American economy.  Keep in mind that the "undocumented immigrants" he's talking about are coming in from traditionally CATHOLIC countries.  Golly gee, it couldn't be that there's a CONSPIRACY afoot here, could it?  This is the most OVERT way the nice Cardinal comes out and says he wants America destroyed.  PROTESTANT America of course.  Turning it into a Catholic style third world country would be fine with him.

The original colonies had the right idea:  Catholics were not allowed to have any sort of political influence in this originally Protestant nation.  Well they finagled it into the Constitution and everybody thinks it's SO nice that we are SO tolerant of wolves that want only to destroy the nation.

But isn't this Cardinal Dolan such a NICE guy, such a charming guy.  Most Americans don't care about the history of these things anyway, so when the Inquisition comes and gets all us Protestants first it won't bother them a lot anyway.  

Bye bye America.  That's what this blog is about after all, although when I started it I didn't know just how many enemies trying to bring us down we actually have.

Pope Aligns Himself With the Anti-Capitalists and Rush Limbaugh Objects

Yesterday I heard that Rush Limbaugh was on the Pope's case for denouncing Capitalism.  Apparently he said he admires the Catholic Church and some past Popes and even this Pope until he came off like any Marxist making Capitalism the cause of all the poverty in the world.

Rush has a large audience but nothing like the Pope's audience.  This Pope has been playing to atheists and homosexuals and now he's playing to Marxists and anti-Americans and really, when you get behind the curtain, he's playing to anti-Christians.  This is the first Pope to be so openly anti-Christ it ought to be apparent at least to Christians, though unfortunately we can't really count on that either.

Anyway it's no surprise that Rush doesn't have that much discernment, but at least he was willing to object when the Pope so openly aligned himself against Capitalism.  Apparently the Pope condemned "unfettered capitalism" as this great evil, although there is really no such thing as "unfettered" capitalism, and as Rush pointed out, the phrase itself can only be meant to target America, the greatest national testimony to capitalist methods in the world.

So Rush said what needed to be said about the virtues of Capitalism, how in fact not only does it not promote poverty but historically it has done more for the poor than any other economic system in the world.  The Pope had specifically objected to the idea of "trickle-down economics" and Rush defended it as how Capitalism works and how it benefits the poor. 

One thing Rush doesn't know and most of us haven't known either  --  I've only been learning it over the last year or so --  is that official Catholic economic doctrine is socialist.  There are Catholics of course who fervently support Capitalism, but I'm talking about official Vatican doctrine here.  They have two reasons to hate Capitalism -- 1)  it opposes their own official economic doctrine, and 2) it's a product of the Protestant Reformation.   It's those former Popes Rush admires for their support of Capitalism who are out of step with the Vatican, while this Jesuit Pope is quite in tune with it.

It would be good to put up some links for all these assertions and I hope I'll have the time to do that eventually, but meanwhile I'd refer you to the book Ecclesiastical Megalomania by John Robbins, which I have listed in the margin at my Catholicism blog.

Another Stinkin' Bloom or Bloomin' Stinker or whatever

Hey, the Corpse Flower has bloomed in WASHINGTON D.C.   How appropriate.  I don't know if there's any significance to the date of its bloom though, all ideas welcome.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/foul-corpse-flower-blooms-washington-180112945.html

 

There's more than one stinky thing about this article, for instance the evolutionist fairy tale about why it "evolved" its peculiar smell:  to attract flies and carrion beetles to be its pollinators.   Of course it was DESIGNED to do this, it didn't evolve the method, but we have to put up with the usual totally made-up Likely Story that they palm off as Fact, required to "respect" it on pain of enduring some of the stinkiest epithets against our good character you'll ever encounter in this world.   

 

It rather suggests Beelzebub to me of course, Lord of the Flies.  This has got to be his favorite flower.

 

What a cynic I can be.