A real man, A real dad

Wanna see how a real dad handles things.

Obama A Threat To America

As if anyone with any intelligence had a doubt.

Hat Tip: Daily Caller Full Report

The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger.

In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

Dinosaur Feminazis Furious

Ancient Feminazis On CNN

Hat tip Rush Limbaugh

The feminazis, the feminazis are fried!  They're really worked up over the Ray Rice suspension, the Baltimore Ravens. The commissioner of the NFL sent a guy out to try to explain what happened. He ended up throwing gasoline on the fire, made it worse.  I watched a couple of women on CNN this morning just livid.  These were elderly feminazis.  By the way, that's another thing.  There's another story that I have in the Stack here, and we've been talking about this, this fascinating demographic stuff.

The Tyranny of Tolerance

I know that the title of this article sounds like an oxymoron, thus completely contradictory. How, you may ask, can tolerance by tyrannical? Aren’t these exclusive concepts that have no better record of mixing together than oil and water? In their true definitions, they don’t mix, but in our politically correct culture’s definition, they work rather well together. The Left has created a bastardized version of “tolerance” in which nothing but their worldview is tolerated, which is the essence of tyranny.

Full write up here 

Hat tip my friend Josh Kimbrell
 

The Liberal Christian Delusion

Can such a thing as a “liberal Christian” actually exist? Is it possible for Christianity and liberalism to co-exist?

Questions like this, when asked, may sound like they are meant in jest.  But actually, they are not meant to be funny at all. In reality, the question reflects a quiet serious inquiry. And furthermore, the answer has some serious implications for the millions around the world who call themselves Christians. Another way of asking the question is this: Is it a reality that one can be both a Christian and a liberal at the same time?

To answer this, one must first consider some basic theological tenets: Jesus came to this planet centuries ago with only one thing in mind. He wanted to provide an escape for humankind from being eternally condemned. God knew that the use of animal sacrifices, that at the time were being offered for the atonement for sin, was ultimately never going to really work in the end.  People were simply habitual sinners and had limited resources or patience for the endless sacrifices.  Something else had to be done.

So, Jesus came and died on the cross, and in doing so, created a permanent method through which any human being could be delivered from eternal condemnation.  This also made the road to salvation more direct, although not necessarily easier: One could simply be saved through faith in Christ alone. Without the cross, Christianity is without foundation and meaningless.

This is why truly dedicated Christians are known for quoting from the Word of God, the Bible, and trying to lead others to faith in Christ. Their salvation from hell is the primary motivation in everything they do.  Their desire to see others saved from the same eternal condemnation is priority to them above anything else in their lives.

A liberal Christian, however, is an entirely different thing. They choose to define themselves by their beliefs and involvement in liberal movements above anything else.  These liberal movements could be anything from abortion, to gay rights, to feminism, to racial advocacy, to affirmative action.  Maybe they choose to become advocates for large entitlements and exemptions from the government. Liberal Christianity can manifest itself in so many different ways.  However, one common aspect shared by all of these groups is that they are tied together by what they simply call the “love of Jesus.” This is a very nebulous term that is, in actuality, devoid of meaning.

Liberal Christians never talk about salvation. None of them talk at length about what Jesus did on the cross. Rather, they focus on something else. They seem to promote a type of lifestyle that is totally dependent on self. It is all about bettering one’s self, saving one’s self, relying on one’s own strength and action.

They will tell people that Jesus taught about accepting others, and for that reason, homosexuals must feel accepted and be allowed to celebrate their choice in lifestyle regardless of what the scripture says. They want to create a sort of utopia where everyone is fed and taken care of and nurtured.  In the mind of a liberal, the best way to accomplish that dream is through the government.

The liberal Christians who embrace this concept simply miss the whole aim of Christianity.  For them there is no accountability. There is no challenge for their ethos to line up with what the Bible outlines for mankind.  If one wants to do it and likes the way it feels, then go ahead.  There is a total embrace of everything in today’s society.  Liberal Christianity is not centered on Christ at all, but, instead, it is centered on the world.

What ends up being offered is a buffet style Christianity, allowing people to take the portions of the Bible that make them feel good while ignoring everything else.  When challenged on what they choose to believe, they tell the accuser that he is judgmental and misquote a verse in the Bible where Jesus told us to “judge not.”

In reality, the whole objective of that verse is not to inform the reader that it is wrong to judge, but, rather, to be painfully aware of the measuring stick that is being used.  It is, after all, very common for individuals to hold others to standards that are rather impossible.

For sure, there are many who profess Christianity who require perfection from those around themselves and ignore their own problems. There are others who will spend the majority of their time quibbling over the inconsistencies of others instead of following the commands of God in obedience.

In short, all of the warnings we find in the Bible do not mean that the act of judgment is always a negative action. The reality is that we will all be judged in the end by God’s standards as put forth in His Word.

The life of a Christian liberal is not centered on Christ nor is it based on the Bible. This is proven by their defending the right to murder an unborn child or for the homosexual lifestyle to be glorified. For this reason, a new way is needed to attract supporters.

The easiest avenue to take is often a very poorly disguised New Age form of spirituality. It gives all the right connotations of being loving and having a spiritual type theme.  They begin to use left-wing tactics to motivate their congregation and begin doing things that inflate a sense of self-worth and importance instead of the searching for and finding faith.

This New Age, feel-good type of faith, is not really faith at all. Rather, it takes the basic Christian structure of community and church and makes it into something more attractive to those who are secularists.  All through the history of the progressive movement are individuals who use their position inside their faith to garner support of causes that are extra-Biblical.

It is not enough for anyone to profess to be a Christian or even a Muslim.  To claim a faith is to actually hold to the core beliefs of that faith. Otherwise, God is being created in their image. He becomes a god who holds to what they want to be true.

In short, the answer to the original question is “no.”  Christianity and liberalism cannot coexist.  Once someone turns from faith in the scripture and from the laws of God, they have designed their own religion. This is America, and people are free to do that if they choose.  But please do not call it Christianity. 

Christianity is the coming to a relationship with God through a faith in Jesus Christ in response to the sacrifice He endured.  To call it anything else is quicksand.

A Warning to French Republicans

Hat tip: My friend Bishop Daniel Rea

The good reverend responds to a question via email about his feelings on Cantors defeat.

Cantor and Boehner never were Republicans. They are simply big government liberals who just happened to occasionally vote for other big government ideas and fellow French Republican liberals with an (R) beside their names as opposed to the big government ideas and liberals with the (D) beside their name. Not conservatives or Republicans at all.  The party didn’t abandon them it is just in the process of returning to what it was always supposed to be – a party opposed to big government liberalism in all forms.  The Tea Party is simply the resurrection of the Reagan principals minus the French Republican support (read liberal Dems who became Republican in opposition to Carter).

You say Republicans are the opposite of what they were and so are liberals. Bear in mind that liberals were Republicans at one time. What was formerly liberal is now conservative. What was formerly conservative is now liberal. This is key to undertstanding what I am saying. Liberals were for free speech, the right to own guns, the right for people to work and live as they choose. Conservatives were the status quo. So are you now saying that conservatives are the new liberals.

The right to free speech, right to dissent, the right not to lose your privacy and live under the thumb of an ever watchful and restrictive government, the right to live as you wish, the right for each person to be an individual, not part of a group or a mindset. A small government that defends liberty of the people and huge government that invades every aspect of life with regulations. What kind of toilet we can buy. What light bulbs we can have in our homes. The kind of automobile we feel is best for our family. So if you believe in those things, why aren't you conservative?

I remember when liberals loved the term 'speaking truth to power.' Now they hate it since they have become the power and dissent has become almost tantamount to a crime. It is conservatives that feel uncomfortable with an intrusive authority, that mourn the fact that it is now permissible by law to kill an American citizen overseas if he is simply 'suspected' of being a terrorist and revoking his right of due process, of collecting info on American citizens, of bringing back 'the enemies list' and using government agencies as weapons against those who speak against you. Of turning over your well-being and allowing the government to decide how insurance should be administered and how much you should pay, and deciding when you have made 'enough' money and who you owe your excess to. Maybe it's liberals that have stopped moving forward.

Let us all recall a few facts. The Demcorat Party is the party of...

... Original wars of attrition begun on lies and doctored intelligence - Korea and Vietnam 

...Slavery

...The KKK ("the terrorist wing of the democrat party")

...Jim Crow

...The Confederacy

...Segregation

...Lynching

...Blowing up little black girls at church

...Bull Connor

As recently as the 1990's, the Democrat Party proudly placed a Grand Cyclops of the KKK, one Sen. Robert Byrd, 4th in line of presidential succession.

There is a saying "there is none so devout as the recently converted." I think it important the Republican Party make it a point to consistently remind people of this point. One cannot choose their own view of history and invent “facts” that are clearly lies. Lies not mistakes because lies are intentional and meant to mislead.

The Democrat Party is so racist they couldn't even pass civil rights legislation, even though they owned the presidency, House and Senate from 1960 to 1964. Kennedy was warned continually that he would divide the Democratic Party. Want to know who had their hands dripping with JFK's blood? Consider Bull Connor in league with Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, Geroge Wallace, and others.

This is the continuing, now 60 year democrat-manufactured slander that has gone unchallenged, and I suspect, intentionally taught in our schools, that the Republicans are home to Americas racists. This not only requires a willful denial of easily researchable history, but a deliberately malicious twisting of the truth. It's a lie. The democrats know it's a lie. Even though they know it's a lie, they gladly and joyfully repeat it, they even print this lie on protest signs declaring it.

Which party is following the Nazi, Marxist, Fascist, and Saul Alynsky practice of telling a lie long and loud enough that it is eventually accepted as the truth? Americas national tragedy on the issue of race, is the unwillingness to put a stop to the 60 year lie. Democrat Bull Connor as the Public Safety Commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama allowed freedom riders, reporters, and ministers in support of the Civil Rights movement to be beat for 15 minutes by the KKK before he allowed Birmingham police to take action to stop them. Democrat Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, who stood in the school doorway to prevent black children from attending school with white children. Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party in 1964 as a protest of LBJ's continued support for the Civil Rights Act. Thurmond continually voiced hate for JFK and MLK. Senator Robert Byrd held the titles of Grand Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of the KKK.

So in honesty of history and facts, which is the party of racism?  The Tea Party is bringing the party back to our true conservative roots grounded in Lincoln to Reagan minus the French Republicans who were never Republicans to begin with, I say good riddance to them and take Romney, Rubio, McConnell, Ryan, and Paul with them.

Obama Just Funded Terrorists For Years

Hat tip, my friend who is a senior intelligence official:

The Haqqanis could give a rat’s ass about prisoners, the Haqqani Network, a designated terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who were freed in exchange for Bergdahl’s release.  The people that are holding Bergdahl wanted cash and someone paid it to them.  

The Taliban is an ideologically committed group, they say, while the Haqqani Network is better understood as a tribal crime syndicate using unrest in the region not to advance an Islamist agenda but to further own financial and political interests.

When Westerners talk [about the] Taliban, we tend to use it as a generic term.  Afghans are more likely to talk about the Haqqani Network versus the Quetta Shura also known as the Afghan Taliban versus the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.

One of these things doesn’t add up.  If you were to put one of these Taliban prisoners with Haqqani in a room together, they’d beat the shit out of each other.

Haqqani benefits zero from the prisoner exchange.  Based on 10 years of working with those guys, the only thing that would make them move Bergdahl is money.

Whether the Qataris paid it, or some big oil sheik, or somebody used our petrodollars, there was a ransom paid in cash for each one of them, my guess somewhere in the round numbers of $5 or 6 million to get Bergdahl freed.

The groups do have links, but if Bergdahl was held by Haqqani and we released Quetta Shura, it seems Bergdahl’s captors were seeking something other than the Taliban prisoners, got paid off, and Obama simply used the trade as an excuse to release master terrorists from Gitmo.