Same Lingo- Different Dictionary: Part 4

Image result for Compromising with evil

 

Image result for a comfortable peace rather than an uncomfortable freedom

 

 

PART 1 .

PART 2 .

PART 3 .

Attributed to  Dr. James Dobson:

“They use our language, but NOT our Dictionary'”

This has been a problem since at least the 1860’s, but has grown exponentially worse since the 1960’s.

Liberals use a common, everyday word or phrase…but with a different, often a very different meaning. This was done deliberately to muddy the language, muddy the discourse, and the end result, advance Liberalism.

We will now look at some of the terms Liberals use that we/Conservatives use, BUT the Liberals have changed the meaning so it sounds like they’re agreeing with us when all the while they’re lying to us. LET US COMMENCE…

This will be “LIBS SAY”, what Conservatives mean by the term, what Libs mean by the term:

“LIBS SAY”

1.We’re for equality.

To a Conservative equality means equal OPPORTUNITY/EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER (THE SAME) LAW(S). This is left to each individual to take advantage of, and use freely as God gives them the ability to do so.

To a Liberal that means equal OUTCOME. This REQUIRES Gov. meddling, regulation, progressive taxation, WELFARE/Entitlements to “level the playing field”. Libs assume most are too ignorant, too incapable, or some other way handicapped and ONLY gov. can help, and LOTS of government.

2. We’re for free speech.

What Conservatives mean: free to say anything (within reason) no matter how hateful, stupid, disgusting, vile, and racist it may be. We draw the line at things like yelling “FIRE!”, or “BOMB!” in crowded areas, that would cause a panic and may get someone hurt or killed. That is called: COMMON-SENSE.

To a Liberal “free speech” means you can say anything that aligns with and agrees with Liberalism. All speech that does not align/agree with Liberalism is “hate speech”, “not PC”, and…possibly “racist”.

3. We’re for Liberty and Freedom.

To a Conservative this means you have the right to say and believe and do almost anything (again, within reason). You can believe in the foolishness of a flat earth, global warming, “socialism is the answer”, you’re the “superior race”…BUT WE ARE NOT obligated to LISTEN to such mindless, hate-filled blather. Conservatives also believe that your right to swing your fist stops at our nose. Mainly, free to do as one ought to, but wont force any to do anything. As long as we can freely choose not to listen, fund, support “whatever”…go ahead, be an idiot and believe that you can “spend your way out of debt/ tax your way to prosperity.” As long as YOUR opinion does NOT infringe on OUR rights…be wrong all you want.

Liberals mean: Freedom to do/say whatever you want, no matter how stupid and vile it may be. AND often the gov, i.e. we the tax payer, also HAVE to PAY for your “freedom”.

4. We’re Pro-Choice.

Conservatives are all about Liberty and Freedom. We fought a Revolution and the War of 1812 to show WE MEANT WHAT WE SAID. Want to be a blacksmith? be one. Want to go to college? go (as long as YOU pay for it). Want to buy a car? go ahead, whatever make, model and year you want. You want a gun? good idea. It’ll help protect against crime and tyrants. Want to own slaves or kill babies? NO! Your rights can NOT infringe on anyone else’s rights.

Liberals mean: we should be allowed to kill as many innocent babies as we want to. Oh, they call it “Pro-Choice”, “The right of the mother over her own body” (except the THE BABY’S body is NOT the mothers. At 18 DAYS the BABY has it’s own blood type, heart beat, brain waves). Study the origins of the infanticide movement via Margret Sanger and you’ll see it was knowingly meant to do two things: 1. KILL BABIES, 2. Particularly BLACK BABIES. Over 78% of all abortion clinics are in inner-city, or heavily minority areas of town. BUT if you want to CHOOSE to have a gun? NO! Liberals are against THAT choice. Also of note, while Liberals are all for murdering millions and millions of INNOCENT BABIES, they are 100% AGAINST the just execution of convicted felons….Liberalism is evil and bi-polar.

5. We are Pro-Jobs.

Conservatives mean: go out and get, or start your own job/business. The individual is responsible for themselves. Family, Friends, and the local church or charity can assist, BUT the weight of getting and having a job lies with THE INDIVIDUAL.

Liberals mean, again, that government MUST step in and help. Liberal ideas like Affirmative Action, and gov. job training, the “minimum wage” COST ALL, especially those WITH a  job already. EVERYBODY must somehow “pull their fair share” for the poor Liberal to get and keep a job. How is it everyone else’s responsibility for Johnny Liberal to get a job paying $15.00 an hour flipping burgers via the Liberal idea of “minimum wage”???

Image result for patrick henry give me liberty

I could go on.
All of this is supported by Part 2 linked above.

So, with language being so DELIBERATELY muddied and changed it makes open and honest discourse impossible.

And the so-called “Conservatives”, and you KNOW WHO YOU ARE, who are crying 24/7/365 for compromise, ie. surrender of Conservative Principles, to get rid of Trump Liberals ONLY TO DELIBERATELY VOTE IN OODLES-N-GOBS OF DEMOCRAT LIBERALS, are either deluded, OR stealth Liberals yourself.

But like the Bible’s Joshua and Patrick Henry, I am NOT so inclined to turn back to Liberalism/Slavery…NeverTrump and NeverLiberal mean NEVER….PERIOD.

 

 -Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.

 

Is Compromise With Liberals & Liberalism Possible: Is There Common-Ground?

Image result for train wreck

First, links to the first two segments:

PART 1 .

PART 2 .

PART 4 .

Let me now re-ask/re-address the line of questioning from Part 2:

  1. WHAT is the common-ground that Liberals and Conservatives can via compromise agree on and then vote into policy/law? [NOTE: See Part 2 above for what both sides believe.]
  2. Does compromising with Liberals actually mean in real world application and results that Conservatives cave, i.e. surrender Conservative Principles?
  3. ARE Principles negotiable? Something to be compromised, bartered, bantied, and abandoned when “things get really bad”?
  4. IS there actual right and wrong? Liberals say everything is relative, negotiable, and, hence, open for compromise. Conservatives say right is right- period; wrong is wrong- period. That to get good RESULTS we must needs make decisions based on and rooted in what IS good and right. HOW can Conservatives compromise with someone who thinks that WHATEVER is just as right/good as anything else…as long as the Liberal goal is achieved?
  5. Liberalism is a world-view of Big-Government tyranny. Conservatism is a world-view of “Life, LIBERTY, and The Pursuit of Happiness”. WHERE, and WHY, do Conservatives then abandon Conservative Principles to compromise with someone that is wholly, and entirely opposed to their Conservative Principles?

Keep Part 2 as a point of reference and then, IF possible, show the shared common-ground that Liberals and Conservatives have.

Rather than simply say yes or no- they do or do not have common-ground- I will ask a series of questions based upon the stated beliefs of both sides, whereby letting each read, think, and decide for themselves.

The Queries:

  1. What is the COMMON-GROUND between a Leftist and a Patriot/Conservative?
  2. What is the COMMON-GROUND between Big Government Liberals, and Small, Restricted by The Constitution Conservatives?
  3. Where is the COMMON-GROUND between supporters of National Socialised Medicine (like Obama-Care, or Single-Payer), and The Constitutional-Conservative solution of getting gov. OUT of the free markets, OUT of the private sector, and encourage free market/private sector solutions?
  4. Where is the COMMON-GROUND between the Liberal support of gay/sodomite marriage/rights, and The Conservative’s core belief of Traditional Family Values?
  5. Where is the COMMON-GROUND between The Democrat Party’s daily and historic move toward Socialism and Marxism, and The Conservative’s embrace of America’s Founding Principles?
  6. Where is the COMMON-GROUND between The Democrat’s support and FUNDING of Abortion, euthanasia, and doctor assisted suicide, and The Conservative’s belief that LIFE is the FIRST right given to us ALL by God, and three times FIRST mentioned in America’s Founding documents, (Declaration of Independence, 5th, and 14th Amendment)?
  7. Where is the COMMON-GROUND between between the Democrat’s gun-grabbing, gun-registration, gun-banning principle(s), and Conservatism’s embrace and defense of 2nd Amendment rights?
  8. What is the COMMON-GROUND between The Democrat’s belief in Big Government authoritarianism, and the Conservative’s CORE belief that we ARE a Constitutional Republic and that government is defined and RESTRAINED by The Constitution?
  9. What is the COMMON-GROUND between the Liberal’s view that The Constitution is “a living document” to be interpreted and applied HOWEVER is necessary to advance Liberalism, and The Conservative’s belief that America’s Founders said what they meant and meant what they said?
  10. What is the COMMON-GROUND between The Democrat’s embrace of the Marxist Progressive Income Tax, tax and spending HIKES, and the Conservative’s belief in ONLY Constitutional spending, programs, and as LOW a taxation as feasible?
  11. Lastly, What is the COMMON-GROUND between The Democrat’s view that government, and even Globalism/world government, IS THE Solution to ALL mankind’s ills, and the Conservative’s belief that we are each responsible for our own actions, and that FIRST line of aid is to be family, then church, then LOCAL charity, then, LASTLY, local government?

What is the COMMON-GROUND between Liberals, whether Democrats or RINO/Trumpers, and US Conservatives?

==============

For Those saying they’re pushing “only for moderates…the center” THIS is Mark Warner, a so-called “Champion” of the so-called “Moderate” view:

MARK WARNER’S VIEWS ARE:

SOURCE .

PRO ABORTION:

  • Support Roe v. Wade, but respect differing views. (Oct 2008)
  • Protect responsible Choice. (Nov 2001)
  • Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
  • Keep federal funding for family planning clinics. (Mar 2017)

PRO BIG GOVERNMENT:

  • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
  • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
  • Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)

PRO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/CIVIL “RIGHTS”:

  • Switched to supporting same-sex marriage in 2013. (Jul 2014)
  • We still need affirmative action, for now. (Oct 2008)
  • Let military leaders advise about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. (Oct 2008)
  • Eliminated Family Rule, so unrelated couples can buy homes. (Mar 2008)
  • Project Genesis: faith-based African-American home program. (Mar 2008)
  • Promote minority-owned business. (Nov 2001)
  • End racial profiling; more minority police. (Nov 2001)
  • Extend hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Nov 2001)
  • Voted YES on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
  • Enforce against wage discrimination based on gender. (Jul 2013)
  • Let states recognize same sex marriage. (Jan 2015)

ANTI BUSINESS:

  • Financial crisis stems from companies over-borrowing. (Sep 2008)
  • More state contracts for minority & women-owned businesses. (Mar 2008)
  • Rated 83% by UFCW, indicating an anti-management/pro-labor record. (May 2012)
  • Restrict corporate use of consumer mandatory arbitration. (Aug 2016)

PRO EPA:

  • All-of-the-above approach, including pro-coal. (Jul 2014)
  • Opposes drilling ANWR; but OK to drill offshore. (Sep 2008)
  • Offshore drilling is acceptable but not the “silver bullet”. (Jul 2008)
  • Vetoed offshore drilling ban until more laws & facts known. (Jul 2008)
  • Drastically reduced emissions from VA coal power plants. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted NO on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
  • Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (Apr 2009)
  • Voted YES on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (Apr 2009)

PRO OBAMA-CARE

  • Ebola: screen passengers on flights from West Africa. (Oct 2014)
  • AdWatch: Targeted by RNC robocalls for support of ObamaCare. (Nov 2013)
  • Proposed 50-governor 7-principle Medicaid reform. (Nov 2008)
  • Cannot allow 47 million Americans to go without access. (Oct 2008)
  • As governor, 138,000 more children covered by insurance. (Mar 2008)
  • Get every eligible child health care. (Nov 2001)
  • Answer seniors’ questions with “Senior Navigator”. (Jan 2001)
  • Supports Virginia Health Care Foundation for under-served. (Jan 2001)
  • Voted NO on the Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts. (May 2011)
  • Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
  • Voted YES on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
  • Merge Alzheimers diagnosis and care benefit. (Jul 2013)
  • Religious exemption from ObamaCare individual mandate. (Mar 2015)

PRO GOV. MEDDLING IN FREE MARKET/PRIVATE BUSINESS SECTOR:

  • Bring high-tech, well-paying jobs to small towns. (Aug 2008)
  • Gilmore opposed helping Tultex, despite Assembly’s support. (Jul 2008)
  • No employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Mar 2008)
  • Increase minimum wage; support homeless job training. (Jul 1996)
  • Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (Jan 2009)

PRO “MODERATE” STANCE IS “SOLUTION”:

  • End partisan gridlock; embrace common ground. (Sep 2008)
  • It’s “the future v. the past” not “liberal v. conservative”. (Aug 2008)
  • Replace name-calling with bipartisan management. (Jul 2008)
  • Term-limited as governor in 2008. (Jun 2006)
  • We can’t win presidency in only 16 blue states. (Jun 2006)
  • Voted YES on confirming of Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court. (Aug 2009)

=============

As I read Mark Warner’s “Moderate” record and stances I see a Liberal feigning to be “reasonable” and then voting with the Liberals.

He says a couple of things that sound/seem good to a Conservative, BUT they are all couched in mountains of Liberalism, and a Liberal voting record.

So, how is a “Moderate” in reality any different than a Liberal? A Liberal is more honest about their Liberalism is about the only difference there is.

============

Each read, think, pray and decide for yourself.

What The Heritage Foundation has to say about this:

SOURCE .

Liberals always seem to be suggesting ways for conservatives to get back on the right track. E.J. Dionne, for example, suggests in a new book that conservatives would be more successful if they “moderated,” abandoned many of their core ideals, and came to terms with big government.

This is nonsense, Heritage scholar Lee Edwards writes in The Daily Signal:

Contrary to Dionne’s advice, conservatives understand that the way to win the electoral debate is to take a strong forward position and stick with it just as Reagan did with his 1981 tax cuts that triggered 90 months of economic growth and his Strategic Defense Initiative which forced the Soviets to abandon the arms race and agree to end the cold war at the bargaining table and not on the battlefield.

Dionne is correct that President Eisenhower presided over a period of comparative peace and prosperity in the 1950s, but his “modern” Republicanism was rejected as “a dime store New Deal” by Barry Goldwater, a prime maker of the conservative movement. What Reagan said in his first inaugural address still applies: “In this crisis, government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.”

Contrary to Dionne’s counsel, American conservatism does not need warmed-over Republicanism from the Fifties to get back on track but principled leadership committed to real health care solutions, meaningful spending cuts, tax reform that spurs economic growth and creates jobs, a strong national defense, energy independence, commonsense immigration reform, protection of human life from conception to natural death, and preservation of the traditional family.

I’ll close by quoting one of America’s Founding Fathers, “The Atlas of The Constitution”, John Adams:

“In politics the MIDDLE WAY is NO way at all.”

 -Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.

 

Consider THE RESULTS. Proceed With Caution.

Image result for Conservapedia

[NOTE: All definitions unless otherwise note are from the Conservative online Dictionary and Encyclopedia “Conservapedia”.]

PART 1 .

PART 3 .

PART 4 .

This 2nd part of “The Middle Way” article will lay the ground-work to look at and address several real world questions:

  1. WHAT is the common-ground that Liberals and Conservatives can via compromise agree on and then vote into policy/law?
  2. Does compromising with Liberals actually mean in real world application and results that Conservatives cave, i.e. surrender Conservative Principles?
  3. ARE Principles negotiable? Something to be compromised, bartered, bantied, and abandoned when “things get really bad”?
  4. IS there actual right and wrong? Liberals say everything is relative, negotiable, and, hence, open for compromise. Conservatives say right is right- period; wrong is wrong- period. That to get good RESULTS we must needs make decisions based on and rooted in what IS good and right. HOW can Conservatives compromise with someone who thinks that WHATEVER is just as right/good as anything else…as long as the Liberal goal is achieved/
  5. Liberalism is a world-view of Big-Government tyranny. Conservatism is a world-view of “Life, LIBERTY, and The Pursuit of Happiness”. WHERE, and WHY, do Conservatives then abandon Conservative Principles to compromise with someone that is wholly, and entirely opposed to their Conservative Principles?

These and other questions will be looked at as we proceed.

FIRST, WHAT IS LIBERALISM?

As catalogued and listed by Conservapedia Liberalism is defined thusly:

liberal (alternately called a left-winger or leftist) is someone who advocates an increase in government spending, power, and control, such as ObamaCare. Liberals often support the censorship and denial of biblical Christianity.[1] Liberals who are a part of the secular left prefer atheism/agnosticism over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans.[2]

Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including homosexual “marriage”. Liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working.[3] The liberal ideology has degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. All liberals support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of conservative principles, while lacking an actual ideology or values of their own.[4] Many of them cannot understand Christian language.[5]

Polling data has consistently shown that an increasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%.[6] However, liberals and “progressives” oftentimes falsely say the exact opposite.

LIBERAL VIEWS ARE:

Liberals support the following political positions and practices:[7]

  • Wasting money on ineffective government programs (the significant economic problems in the Eurozone due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
  • Many liberals are increasingly attempting to limit free speech.[8][9]
  • In the United States, the Democrat Party and liberals have moved so far left that there are now political figures involved in Democrat politics who are sympathetic to Communism. For example, Anita Dunn, an American political strategist who served as White House Communications Director from April through November 2009 in Obama Administration, said that Mao Zedong was her favorite political philosopher.[10] Bernie Sanders, a leading candidate in the Democrat Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, although he is an adherent of social democracy, he also has a history of involvement with Marxist organizations.[11][12][13] Sanders shocked his fellow liberals by putting up a Soviet Union flag in his Senate office.[14] In 1998, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which was founded by Sanders, had the song Red Revolution (a song advocating communist revolution) featured on a website that they shared with the Democratic Socialists of America.[12]
  • In 1993, Hugh E. Rodham, father of Hillary Clinton, made the statement about the Democrat Party, which is a party strongly supported by liberals, “Democrats are one step short of Communism.”[15] In 1988, the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), after decades of running their own presidential candidates, stopped running presidential candidates because the gap between Democrats and American communists had grown smaller.[16] In 2016, the CPUSA urged people not to vote for Donald Trump even if they disliked Hillary Clinton (an indirect endorsement of Clinton).[16] Although there are still some very substantial differences between Communists and Democrats/liberals, the line between Communists/Democrats/liberals continues to blur in the United States.[15] Ironically, the leading Communist country in the world, Communist China, has moved farther away from Communism and now has a mixed economy of capitalism and state owned enterprises.[17]
  • Denial of science[18] (especially creation science)
  • Government’s ability to solve economic problems[19]
  • Hypocrisy[20]
  • The belief that Islamic terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Islamic extremists’ hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy [19]
  • Brainwashing voters with propaganda
  • Hedonism
  • Taxpayer-funded and state-encouraged abortion
  • Rejection of Biblical standards
  • Naive acceptance of the Idea of Progress
  • Hatred[21]
  • Murder (through abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, and euthanasia)
  • Censorship[22]
  • Socialism[23]
  • Unsuccessful Keynesian economics as opposed to sound free-market economics
  • Crying instead of accepting reality[24]
  • Cessation of teacher-led prayer in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events.
  • Ending Western morality[25]
  • Gun control
  • Pseudo-intellectualism[26]
  • Affirmative action[19]
  • Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right[27]
  • Authoritarian government[28]
  • Government-funded medical care, such as Obamacare
  • Fascist tendencies (see also: Homo-fascism)
  • Belief in evolution
  • Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built.
  • Destroying conservative family values and replacing them with immoral Hollywood values, such as abortion
  • Brainwashing through government-censored public education
  • Limiting personal freedom.[29] Liberal support for gun control is an example of this.
  • High progressive taxes[30] as a form of class warfare against wealthy business owners.[31]
  • Placement of men and women in the same jobs in the military
  • Slowly eroding the U.S. through Progressivism.[32]
  • Legalized same-sex “marriage” and homosexual adoption
  • Failed tax and spend economics
  • Smearing[33]
  • Libertine sexual morality. See: Evolutionary belief and sexual immorality and Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity
  • Economic sector regulations[19]
  • Denial of conservative roles in history. For example, liberals frequently claim[34] that George Washington was a deist when he was actually a devout Episcopalian.
  • Spreading of political correctness
  • Government mass-surveillance
  • Non-syndicalist labor unions
  • Many liberals engage in racism[35]
  • Bigotry
  • Advocating incorrect policies[36]
  • Encouraging promiscuity and immorality through sexual education rather than teaching abstinence from premarital sex[37]
  • A “living Constitution” that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.

  • Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
  • Slander[38]
  • Gender “Equality”
  • Anti-Americanism
  • Abolition of the death penalty
  • Environmentalism[39]
  • Globalismone-world government, and opposition to national sovereignty
  • Support for open borders with no border controls or border walls
  • Unconstitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
  • Opposition to full private property rights.[40]
  • Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine
  • Welfare
  • Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
  • Oppression of business rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy
  • American liberals often have opposition to the U.S. Constitution and/or are often ignorant of what the U.S. Constitution states. Liberals seek to expand federal power at the expense of local government and silence the conservatives who hold them back, violating the 10th and 1st Amendments respectively.
  • Denial of traditional gender roles
  • Support of financially irresponsible policies
  • Encouragement of “global warming” alarmism
  • Rejection of logical[41] standards

Some liberals support:

 SOURCE .

SEE ALSO .

==================

Ok, THAT is Liberalism. Let’s look at Conservatism and see IF there is ANY common-ground…

CONSERVATISM DEFINED, IT’S ROOTS:

conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. A conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of economics and the logic of the Bible for the benefit of everyone else. A conservative favors conserving value by not giving handouts to anyone who does not really need them.

A conservative typically adheres to principles of personal responsibility, moral values, and limited government, agreeing with George Washington‘s Farewell Address that “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to political prosperity.[1][2]

Religious conservatism is a big driver of social conservatism. Religious conservatism is growing in the world and it is affecting politics (see: Religious conservatism and politics).

Phil Crane, the leading conservative congressman in the House from 1969 to 2005, urged people to make the world a better place than where they found it, and quoted frequently from the Bible in pursuit of that goal.[3]

Former President Ronald Reagan said, “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.”[4]

CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE:

Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

SOURCE 1 .

SOURCE 2 .

==================

In Part 3 we will look at whether there can truly be any compromise between the two…but a cursory glance says: “No”.

LINK TO PART 1 .

 

 -Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.

 

“The Middle Way Is NO Way At All’

 

Related image

PART 2 .

PART 3 .

PART 4 .

 

We ARE in the midst of the worst storm involving the confluence of politics, culture, principles, morals, and religion(s) in human history. This storm is as Global as The Noahic Flood, BUT with FAR WORSE results…this storm could well mean the END OF OF THE WORLD AS WE CURRENTLY KNOW IT, and the ushering of what secular-humanists call the “New World Order”, and what The Bible calls the Seven Year Great Tribulation Reign of THE Anti-Christ and one world government, one world financing, and one world (mandatory/compulsory) religion.

The debate among GOOD, Solid Conservatives, and Christians is how to BEST prepare for it, maybe delay it, or, perhaps thwart it for now.

Some have suggested wholesale compromise, appeasement, and even VOTING FOR AND PROMOTING The Enemy of ALL that is good and right to rid ourselves of ONE, lone man: Trump.

I 100% with passionate reason and reasoned passion DISAGREE…what follows is my response, my view as posted on twitter over the last few weeks…BUT…these are views embedded, espoused, and embraced by America’s Founders, taught and found IN The Bible, The Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, The Constitution/Bill of Rights (including the 11th Amendment)…views, Principles, that I’ve held, embraced and proclaimed since 1976…the discourse from my pov is as follows:

Image result for a storm is coming meme

AFTER YEARS OF DEBATE AMONG CONSERVATIVES, CONSTITUTIONALISTS, AND CHRISTIANS, THAT SINCE 2015 HAS BEEN INTENSIFIED DUE TO TRUMP…IN RECENT WEEKS HAS COME TO A HEAD… “HOW DO WE PROCEED FROM HERE?”, “HOW DO WE SOLVE THE CRISIS WE’RE IN?”, “HOW DO WE SAVE AMERICA?”…

Some have suggested wholesale compromise, appeasement, and even VOTING FOR AND PROMOTING The Enemy of ALL that is good and right to rid ourselves of ONE, lone man: Trump…

HERE IS MY proposed “remedy”:

I will do ANYTHING to restore Biblical-Christian & Constitutional-Conservative Principles. Supporting, voting for, and by other means selling out to Liberals/Liberalism is NOT remotely the way to restore/save America. 1/

Let’s say we elect a Senate & House FILLED with Democrats/Liberals. And DT is removed. What have we “won”? We rid us of 1 Liberal, and get HUNDREDS of Liberals in Congress & as reaction against the GOP another LIBERAL President??? 2/

Only this Liberal will be a Democrat. That’s “winning”? That’s “saving America”? It certainly is NOT Conservative NOR Conservatism. 3/

It may just be that we, I mean REAL Conservatives, need to DO what should have ALWAYS done: BE Conservative. Study the issues. Study the candidates. ALWAYS VOTE. AND ALWAYS VOTE CONSERVATIVE. We’ve abandoned Principle, sold out, compromised…and what has it got us?? 4/

It’s got us Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush jr. (to a lesser extent), Obama, and now DT. And now our compromising and voting as many LIBERALS ON PURPOSE is our grand scheme to “save America”?? 5/

Compromise helps, aids, and furthers ONLY LIBERALISM. Where are OUR Patrick Henry’s with conviction & Principle crying “Give me Liberty or give me death!”?? 6/

If a bill or issue IS Conservative at the start then any and all compromise ONLY MAKES IT MORE LIBERAL. BE CONSERVATIVE. AND Conservatives do NOT vote for, support, and fund Liberals/Liberalism. 7/

The above 7-Point Twitter Storm was/is my response to the very suggestion of compromise and/or wholesale capitulation to Liberals and Liberalism.

Below is my “fleshing out” my reasoning.

1. I agree. 2. Clean house. 3. Get rid of ALL LIBERALS- DNC & RINO/TRUMPERS. 4. START OVER. 5. WITH CONSERVATIVES- NOT BY VOTING IN LIBERALS. How is flooding all levels of governance with LIBERALS “solving” anything? It’s not- ONLY MAKES IT WORSE.

Every candidate that feigns “moderate”- Dem or GOP- when in office moves/VOTES left, i.e. McCain, McConnell, Warner, Snowe, and Graham. Moserates are Libs either afraid to be outed, or lying/stealth. John Adams: In Politics the MIDDLE way is NO WAY AT ALL.

I want a REAL Conservative like: Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Washington, Coolidge, Reagan, Walter E Williams, Thomas Sowell…

Selling out to Liberals/Liberalism to gain a short term “victory” solves nothing. There are Conservatives- Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, Jim DeMint. Selling out will only make America more Liberal, ie WORSE. Stand for and by Conservatism and win…like Reagan.

You want to save America? You want to turn America around?

You will NOT get it by going Liberal/Dem. When both Houses of Congress & WH are all Dem/Lib it will only be WORSE.

MAGA IS THE LEFT. Nothing Conservative about them. Nothing honest about them either. MAGA is either weak-willed, spineless “Conservatives” who have caved, compromised, sold out, or been bullied or blackmailed, or they (MAGA) are flat-out Liberals-in-sheep’s-clothing FEIGNING Conservatism to destroy it as a voice. Either way MAGA IS Leftist.

To save America, IF still possible, will require…what?

The pain of being honorable, determined, principled, uncompromising Conservatives.

Stand on, with, by Conservative Principles- Period. BE Conservative. Vote Conservative. Live, act, portray and proclaim Conservative Principles. They not only win- they are RIGHT.

BUT FILLING BOTH Houses & the WH with Dems/Libs only makes it WORSE. How do you think the Libs/Dems will be “better”? How will they govern/vote to make things better? We MUST think of the RESULTS.

A winning strategy MUST see the results of it’s implementation.

You will NOT get it by going Liberal/Dem. When both Houses of Congress & WH are all Dem/Lib it will only be WORSE.

This is NOT winning.

Again:

Every candidate that feigns “moderate”- Dem or GOP- when in office moves/VOTES left, i.e. McCain, McConnell, Warner, Snowe, and Graham. Moserates are Libs either afraid to be outed, or lying/stealth. John Adams: In Politics the MIDDLE way is NO WAY AT ALL.

The true source of our sufferings has been our timidity.

…In politics the middle way is no way at all.

John Adams

VOTE ALL LIBERALS OUT, DNC & RINO/TRUMPERS. BUT do NOT then VOTE IN MORE LIBERALS. What problem was “solved” by doing that? None. It ONLY GETS WORSE WITH MORE LIBERALS. A “moderate” is a Liberal lying to you. John Adams: In politics the Middle way is NO WAY AT ALL.

Trumper’s/MAGA’s version of Conservatism?

Trump is FOR, voted FOR, supported, AND FUNDED:

VOTED FOR JIMMY CARTER- TWICE

VOTED FOR WALTER MONDALE

VOTED FOR BILL CLINTON- TWICE

VOTED FOR AL GORE

VOTED FOR JOHN KERRY

VOTED FOR CHUCK SCHUMER

VOTED FOR BILL DE BLASIO

VOTED FOR HITLARY CLINTON

VOTED/FUNDED FOR PELOSI

VOTED FOR ANTHONY WEINER

VOTED FOR CHARLIE RANGEL

VOTED/FUNDED FOR MAXINE WATTERS

VOTED/FUNDED FOR BARBARA BOXER

VOTED/FUNDED FOR DIANE FEINSTEIN

VOTED/FUNDED FOR HARRY REID

VOTED FOR/FUNDED OBAMARXIST- TWICE

IS FOR A $15.00 AN HOUR MINIMUM WAGE

IS FOR TRANSGENDERS USING “WHATEVER” BATHROOM/SHOWER THEY WANT

FOR A BAN ON “ASSAULT WEAPONS”

FOR RAISING TAXES ON “THE RICH” (JUST LIKE SANDERS, CLINTON AND OBAMA)

FOR GAY/SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” (SAID THE COURT HAD RULED AND IT WAS “THE LAW OF THE LAND”…UM, COURTS DO NOT MAKE NOR PASS LAW, CONGRESS DOES)

FOR MASSIVE TARIFFS THAT WILL FURTHER DAMAGE AMERICA’S ECONOMY AND JOBS

IS FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS, GOLDMAN-SACHS, AND OTHER BANKERS THAT HE PRETENDS TO HATE

HAS SOROS, GOLDMAN-SACHS AND EVEN CLINTON PEOPLE ON HIS STAFF

FUNDS/SUPPORTS PLANNED PARENTHOOD

FUNDS/SUPPORTS CODE PINK

AND IS ENDORSED BY THE KKK AND STORMNFRONT!!!
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE…

I ISSUE THE CHALLENGE, SHOW ME HOW:

1) any of that IS Conservative,

2) how YOU can be truly Conservative and support THAT.

1. Their, MAGA’s, “version of Conservatism” IS Liberalism. 2. Voting LIBERAL does NOT advance Conservatism. 3. Getting rid of 1 Lib as WE VOTE IN HUNDREDS MORE, AND A NEW ONE IN THE WH SOLVES WHAT? 4. I can only follow the example of Conservatives before me- vote Principles.

MAGA abandoned principles to embrace Trump. We will abandon principles to get rid of Trump?? How is THAT Conservative? HOW does that “save” America?

As for me…THIS is MY sentiment, my stance on principles, morals, politics, and saving America:

“Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death”

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not [Jer. 5:21], the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry  for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss [Matt. 26:48]. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be
reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If
we wish to be free– if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?  Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?  Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us [2 Chron. 32:8]. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone [Eccl. 9:11]; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace [Jer. 6:14].  The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field!  Why stand we here idle [Matt. 20:6]? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

 -Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.

 

Viral News Dump: Part 3.

Image result for casemiro totgs fifa 17

Image result for Viral News Dump

Richard LeBlanc

Always remember. Everything with these folks is about distraction from something even worse. Everyone is focusing on crazy Rudy and that means there is something even more insane about to come out.

=========

It’s been a while since my last “Viral News Dump”, but the news is soooo plenteous, and there is no easy way to say which should be whittled out and which should remain (though, believe it or not, some actually DID hit the editing room floor), so what I did was renew the 2 part series “Viral News Dump”. My threads are NEVER short walks, nor short sprints, they are usually at least the equivalent of running the mile…THIS, like my other “Viral News Dumps” is a “Marathon”.

This is not a “bullet point” presentation. Nor is it even a “dictionary”. No, this is more akin to the “Encyclopedia Britannia” of the news.

Read, peruse, study a little now. Digest it. Use it. Come back later for more…unless you’re ready for a Marathon.

LET’S COMMENCE, SHALL WE?

FIRST LET ME LINK TO THE FIRST TWO PREVIOUS INSTALLMENTS ON “VIRAL NEWS DUMP”:

VIRAL NEWS DUMP: PART 1 . 

VIRAL NEWS DUMP: PART 2 .

THE ABOVE ARE FROM MAY AND JUNE OF 2017…A YEAR AGO…NOTICE WHAT WE KNEW THEN!

Once again, another compilation of News, headlines, videos, and links followed with a summation of “Just what have we learned?” 

 

Certain so-called Conservatives, Alt-Right, and other assorted Fascists, Socialists, Liberals and Marxists in an unusual cabal of political inanity are still saying there is “no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion in the last election”.

These R.I.N.O.s, Alt-Right, and assorted Leftists are tripping and stumbling over mountains of evidence from ALL sources- Conservative, MSM, Liberal, Independent, and even EYE-WITNESSES- to carry the swamp water for a man who is nothing but a New York Liberal, Liar, Con-Man, Fraud, Egomaniac, and Arrogant Blow-Hard, Donnie El Trampo.

Why?

Why do they do it?

Some are bought off, the R.I.N.O.s/Faux Conservatives, Populists, talk-show hosts…

Some have been bullied,  senators, reps, pundits…

Others are deluded, many from the aforementioned groups, along with Bernie Sanders and HRC followers who see NO difference on many issues…

And some are willful, in-the-know followers who share DT’s “vision” for America, David Duke, The KKK, White-Nationalists and the Russian Mob…

We KNEW THAT THEN.

We KNOW MUCH MORE NOW.

HOW MUCH MORE?

A LOT! HERE IT GOES…

LET’S BEGIN WITH “TASTY TIDBITS”…LIKE THIS…

This jumped out for me: Vekselberg was “detained and questioned by federal agents related to special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe earlier this year.” Mueller has known at least about aspects of this for quite a while. In general: Mueller knows a lot.

 

How money flowed through Michael Cohen’s multi-purpose shell company

 May 8 at 9:47 PM

SOURCE .

Replies to Bill Kristol on Twitter:

It’s my understanding that Nunes also knew about Vekselberg. In general: Nunes obstructs a lot.

===

IMHO Nunes is an obstruction all by himself

===

One Twitter Patriot replied:

He’s six months out in front of the rest of us

===============

Trump today: “When I make promises, I keep them.” Like how he’d make sure ObamaCare was repealed, the deficit slashed, funding for Planned Parenthood & sanctuary cities ended, all illegals deported, China declared a money manipulator and the wall, paid for by Mexico, built?

Since Trump’s election, corporations paid millions of dollars to a shell company created by Michael Cohen, a man who doesn’t appear to practice law and is known as a “fixer” for Trump. Why? Isn’t this the “swamp” Trump promised to drain?

===

In reply to Reanto, Richard LeBlanc asked this, rhetorically I presumed, and with a dose of sarcasm and humor to boot:

I have never drained a swamp or promised to drain one but let me ask this of the professional swamp drainers out there. Is it common the triple the size of a swamp you promised to drain?

===========

===

Michael Cohen’s attorney, Steve Ryan, won’t discuss the $500,000 Michael Avenatti says Cohen received from Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg in 2017. “I understand the shorthand you’re using, but it wasn’t a payment,” Ryan says before hanging up.

When is a payment not a payment? When it’s illegal?

So he’s not denying Cohen got the money, just denying what it was for. That, at least, seems to confirm 50 percent of what claimed, right?

has been NOT wrong yet and this is huge. Now we need the proof Trump knew n were free. Remember Cohen taped everything and kept everything.

If it wasn’t a payment to Cohen… then what? Was Cohen a go-between who relayed the $500,000 to someone else?

Didn’t Giuliani say as much in one of his interviews about him handing it off to the person it was intended for. I could have sworn he said that.

[ME: YES. Giuliani said it was used to pay off Stormy Daniels, but “NOT as hush money for a Presidential candidate” but rather to “protect Trump’s family”. Yeah…right…]

Ummmm when you give someone money…and they do sometjing for money….what is it if not a payment? Being corrupt is so confusing….the language is so oppositional.

[ME: Yep. With Liberals, and Trump and his syncophant followers ARE Liberals, language and mean “whatever”, even nothing, “truth” is what they (currently) say it is even if it contradicts what they said previously, or is diametrically opposed to reality.]

It was a gift. You know, the kind where favors are expected .

Ohhhhhh a gift….with benefits.

Better than a friend with. Cant have those kind of titles in mob world. No friends..its I know a guy who knows a guy,lol.

BREAK DOWN OF THE PAYMENT…SO FAR:

$500,000 to Cohen from oligarch

+$775,000 from home equity line

-$1.6m “Broidy” abortion

-$130k Stormy Daniels

———————————–

$455,000 payments we don’t know about yet

Russian oligarchs don’t just accidentally make 500K “donations” to Americans. Miracles do happen but somehow think that’s not what this was …

What a coincidence. Russia is involved. Trump’s “fixer” is involved. Looks shady. Smells shady. And Cohen’s primary client is Trump. Draw your own conclusions. Whatever they are; remember, Mueller is at least 5 steps ahead of you.

AND, LASTLY FROM NATASHA’S THREAD:

Wait so they’re not denying the money transfer?????

[ME: NO, they are NOT denying what is now clearly obvious.]

===

Can u imagine how Republicans in Congress would react if a Russian oligarch sectioned by the US Govt had paid Hillary Clinton’s personal fixer $500k, after she was elected President? They’d be setting their hair on fire, rightly so. Instead, all we’re getting is crickets… 🦗 🦗

CONSERVATISM-IN-EXILE responded:

If you believe, as I do, the Broidy $1.6m Playboy playmate payment which involved an abortion, was actually Trump’s…. And the RNC is paying Trump’s legal bills….. Did poor unknowing evangelicals PAY FOR DONALD TRUMP’S ABORTION?

Isn’t it convenient that Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal broke this “false story”?? (It’s Trump’s affair, Trump’s baby, Trump’s abortion)

Trump Lawyer Michael Cohen Negotiated $1.6 Million Settlement for Top Republican Fundraiser

The 2017 deal was on behalf of Elliott Broidy, a businessman who faced allegations he impregnated a former Playboy model, and resembles one Mr. Cohen arranged with Stormy Daniels

SOURCE .

President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer negotiated a deal in late 2017 to pay $1.6 million to a former Playboy model who said she was impregnated by a top Republican fundraiser, according to people familiar with the matter.

===

IN OTHER NEWS…

Another Trump lawyer was just exposed for troubling link to Russia

SOURCE .

The day after it was revealed Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen received $500,000 in payments from a financial firm linked to a Russian oligarch aligned with Vladimir Putin, Pro Publica reports another longtime Trump personal attorney, Marc Kasowitz, also represented the very same Russian firm as recently as last year.

Kasowitz says he has represented the private equity firm Columbus Nova since 2010; Columbus Nova operates as the U.S. investment vehicle for Renova Group, a financial company run by Putin ally, Viktor Vekselberg. Columbus Nova also happens to be founded and run by Vekselberg’s cousin, Andrew Intrater. Vekselberg and Renova Group were both targeted by U.S. sanctions in April; Vekselberg and Intrater have been questioned by Robert Mueller.

SEE ALSO .

BIG QUESTION:

IS THERE ANYONE CONNECTED TO AND WITH TRUMP WHO IS NOT SOMEHOW ALSO CONNECTED TO AND WITH PUTIN-RUSSIA??!!!!

Bombshell report reveals Russian Oligarch gave $500K to Michael Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels

In an explosive development that could prove collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow, The New York Times is reporting that a Russian oligarch paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to the same shell company that Michael Cohen used to pay off Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign.
According to the report, “A shell company that Michael D. Cohen used to pay hush money to a pornographic film actress received payments totaling more than $1 million from an American company linked to a Russian oligarch and several corporations with business before the Trump administration, according to documents and interviews.”

More from bombshell

Financial records reviewed by The New York Times show that Mr. Cohen, President Trump’s personal lawyer and longtime fixer, used the shell company, Essential Consultants L.L.C., for an array of business activities that went far beyond what was publicly known. Transactions totaling at least $4.4 million flowed through Essential Consultants starting shortly before Mr. Trump was elected president and continuing to this January, the records show.

Among the previously unreported transactions were payments last year totaling about $500,000 from Columbus Nova, an investment firm in New York whose biggest client is a company controlled by Viktor Vekselberg, the Russian oligarch.

======

NOW FOR “FAIR AND BALANCED”… **snicker**

Just In: Donald Trump’s eldest son Trump Jr. has a new girlfriend

SOURCE .

To say that the Trump Administration and Fox News have been engaged in an incestuous relationship isn’t exactly breaking news. The cable news giant has functioned as the unofficial propaganda outlet for the president since the campaign.

They’ve run favorable, often coordinated coverage around the clock, and they constantly stack their opinion shows and panel “debates” with Trump loyalists and sycophants.

But they’ve also served as a staffing agency for the White House. New National Security Advisor John Bolton worked at Fox News before joining the administration, as did State Department spokesperson Heather Nauert, communications adviser Mercedes Schlapp, and Treasury spokesman Tony Sayegh. Others, like Trump-Russia lawyer Jay Sekulow, were frequent guests on shows hosted by Trump loyalists like Sean Hannity and the now departed Bill O’Reilly before Trump hired them

While it is more than a little awkward to see one news agency so intertwined with the executive branch of our government, at least it hasn’t been inappropriate or disgusting.

Until now. Page Six reported late Wednesday that the relationship between Team Trump and Fox News has moved beyond the friend zone. President Trump’s newly divorced eldest son, Don Jr., is reportedly dating Kimberly Guilfoyle, one of the co-hosts of Fox News’ afternoon opinion show, The Five.

“Multiple sources exclusively tell Page Six that Don Jr. and Guilfoyle have been dating for a few weeks,” writes Emily Smith…

====

Rudy Giuliani delivers shocking announcement about Mueller and Trump interview (Details)

SOURCE .

Rudy Giuliani has barely been on Trump’s legal team, and he’s already thrown his boss under the proverbial bus multiple times. And when any other administration would pull him away from the cameras, these bumbling idiots keep shoving this old moron in front of the spotlight any chance they can. And it’s only proving to have backfired on them – time and time again.

After incriminating his boss during numerous interviews, Rudy deemed it appropriate to appear “strong” in the media, and announced that he’s giving Mueller a “deadline” of May 17th to figure out all the details pertaining to his interview with Trump.

Specifically, Rudy said,

“You need a sort of action-forcing event. I think that’s a good one for us, is the special counsel.” He elaborated that this sort of message is pointless, and doesn’t even necessarily mean anything has to happen by then. Adding, “I can’t walk into it and say ‘absolutely.’ I don’t speak for them. I don’t know if it can get complicated by another, you know, another situation where they – we find that they’ve engaged in misconduct.”

What? Bumble a little more, you doofus.

This is a showcasing of feigned bravado. And it’s blatant. Anyone with 20/20 vision can see their guilt from a mile away. It’s truly only a matter of time before this whole administration feels the sweet, sweet sting of justice.

===

Robert Mueller just requested for 70 blank subpoenas in the Paul Manafort Case

Mueller is making the request for the subpoenas in the Alexandria, Virginia, court where Manafort is facing trial on several charges, including bank fraud. Just last week, a judge rejected a lawsuit filed by Manafort that had challenged Mueller’s authority.

A spokesman for the special counsel confirmed to The Hill that the filing is an additional set of requests, after prosecutors previously requested 35 sets of blank subpoenas for the trial.

===

Cohen Cashed in as a ‘Trump Whisperer’

Novartis ended up paying $1.2M for one meeting

SOURCE .

By Rob Quinn,  Newser Staff
Posted May 10, 2018 5:44 AM CDT

(NEWSER) – Michael Cohen made millions of dollars after the election as a “Trump whisperer,” charging corporate clients large sums for insights into the thinking of the new administration—but it’s still unclear whether his behavior was illegal or merely “swampy.” Sources tell the Washington Post that after President Trump took office, Cohen boasted to potential clients that he spoke to Trump often and was still the president’s personal attorney and “fixer.” One associate says that in the summer of 2017 Cohen told him: “I’m crushing it.” Analysts say Cohen, whose clients included a company linked to a Russian oligarch, could be in deep trouble if he promised government actions in return for cash. In other coverage:

  • A $1.2 million meeting. Drug company Novartis says it hired Cohen for $100,000 a month to advise it on the administration’s approach to ObamaCare repeal and other issues—but it decided after a single meeting that he “would be unable provide the services” needed. The company still paid Cohen a total of $1.2 million because it had signed a one-year contract, the Hill reports. The company says it cooperated with Robert Mueller’s investigation in November when it was asked about the Cohen payments.

====

LASTLY, IN CLOSING TWO INFO LADEN TWEETS ABOUT LITTLE, LYIN’, LIBERAL DONNIE EL TRUMPO:

Evil Heidi Cruz was 1 of 12k VPs at Goldman Sachs & wrote ANTI-NAU paper for Council on For. Rel. as a temp worker.

THANK GOD she didn’t become Whew!

AND ANYONE WHO COMPARES TRUMP TO REAGAN (REAGAN DID NOT LIKE NOR TRUST TRUMP. TRUMP HATED REAGAN) needs to know THIS:

To compare Reagan w/ is not only offensive but repulsive

Would Reagan EVER put a Democrat Obama/Killary donor like Mnuchin as Sec. Treasury? Would RR EVER sign a $1.3T budget w/$ to PP? Does it look like THIS👇🏽Adm of Soros puppets, CFRs, Bushies & GS is 🇺🇸1st?

 

=============================

There.

There’s the 3rd installment of “VIRAL NEWS DUMP”…put on a pot of coffee…sit back…read…

 -Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.

 

Our Rights And Liberties Come From God OR We Do NOT Have Any

Related image

PROLOGUE.

In recent times the debate has been raised again:

“Are our rights from God our Creator? or from man?

HOW this most basic of ALL questions concerning ALL of Life is answered determines whether we even have rights and liberties in reality, OR are they merely man granted privileges and allowances. Let us look more closely.

First, we will consider our rights and liberties are NOT God originated.

“Our Rights Originate With And From Man/Men”

This view holds that either:

  1. There is NO God, Atheistic. Our rights and liberties come from man. Are defined, granted, and defended by man.
  2. There is/may be a God, BUT He left up the understanding of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/private property, and all other defining of governance to mankind to decide on his own. Humanistic.

Consider though that even THE BEST AND MOST MORAL OF MEN (or man), IF he/they were the author and originator, the following outcomes:

  1. These man-made “rights and liberties” would only be as secure as that man/group of men would say and MAKE them be. Hence not really “unalienable rights” then.
  2. Upon the retirement, resigning, and/or death of this man/group of men the aforementioned “rights and liberties” are then in the hands, and at the whim of whoever may follow, and they may be outright authoritarian, corrupt, scoundrels. 

That is THE BEST CASE SCENARIO…now let’s consider the view that outright tyrants, thugs, and criminals ARE THE AUTHOR AND ORIGIN OF OUR “rights and liberties”:

  1. What is “the best” a society can reasonably expect when the WORST is THE source of governance, especially when that governance IS THE SOLE DEFINER, DETERMINER, AND DEFENDER of  your and my rights and liberties? Can we rationally expect GOOD results from a BAD person/group?
  2. IF, perchance, that the “rights and liberties” that were authored by such corrupt tyrants at the first were “good”…could there be any real trust in such a corrupt, vile, authoritarian?

Have ALL of ALL Mankind’s rights and liberties always originated from, with, and in man/a group of men?

Has EVERY right and liberty throughout ALL of History that we ever have truly been authored by  man/a group of men?

If so, then these are NOT truly rights and liberties, BUT RATHER man originated, defined, determined, and defended (if THEY want to) privileges and allowances. AKA, these are ONLY what some man has said at THIS TIME he/she/they will allow…and it can ALL be withdrawn at THEIR WHIM AND FANCY.

That is one way to view rights and liberties.

I do NOT subscribe to that view.

“Our Rights And Liberties ARE Indeed Authored By And Originate With Our Creator God.”

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …

…And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor….

=====================

What America’s Founders said:

The general principles in which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles on which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty…[xv]

-John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

SOURCE .

SOURCE .

SOURCE .

At each of the above three source links can be found a plethora of direct quotes from America’s Founding Fathers and they’re mutual, shared view that ALL our unalienable RIGHTS/LIBERTIES come directly and solely from God.

What then are the logical extrapolations to be derived here? Thusly:

  1. Since ALL our rights inherently and intrinsically, and above all, solely come from God our Creator, THEN NO MAN, NOR GROUP OF MEN, INCLUDING ONE’S OWN GOVERNMENT has the ANY right or authority to take them away, they ARE inalienable rights.
  2. Among these God-Given, Constitutionally-Codified Rights and Liberties is The Right of Self-defense, The Right to Bear Arms. This was understood by Our Founding Fathers, and by reason, to mean that a free, law-abiding citizenry could be, and indeed, SHOULD BE armed enough to protect from ANY threat of crime or tyranny, domestic or otherwise. For ANY government to be more and better armed than the people they serve/govern IS DANGEROUS AND ALWAYS TENDS TOWARD TYRANNY AND SLAVERY.
  3. This is NOT, not even by America’s Founders, and argument to allow the arming of criminals or the insane. BUT we need to be highly vigilant that we do NOT let any government, or man/group be the SOLE arbiter of our God-given, Constitutionally-Codified Rights and Liberties.

=================

CONCLUSION:

ANY view that says, or even hints at the idea that our rights and liberties is ANY less than God-given is to be rejected as the authoritarian, tyrannical, and Godless view it is: it is WRONG.

 -Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.

 

Pizza: The Kakistocracy Continues…PART 2.

Image result for The List of Trump aides and associates involved in scandal

kakistocracy (/ˌkækɪsˈtɒkrəsi, -ˈstɒk-/) is a system of government which is run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens…see “Trump aides and associates”.

SOURCE .

SOURCE .

SOURCE .

SOURCE .

SOURCE .

SOURCE .

SOURCE .

SOURCE .

Just the above 7 source articles are worth the price of admission…BUT THERE IS AN ARTICLE…let’s continue…

First, per usual, Little, Lyin’, Liberal, Donnie El Trampo has moved his lips, aka lying/lied again… DT has asserted, FALSELY SO, that Mueller’s List of Interview Questions contain “NO collusion” questions…let’s look closely, and HONESTLY at that false “Presidential” assertion, shall we?

“No questions on Collusion”

So disgraceful that the questions concerning the Russian Witch Hunt were “leaked” to the media. No questions on Collusion. Oh, I see…you have a made up, phony crime, Collusion, that never existed, and an investigation begun with illegally leaked classified information. Nice!

 

“No questions on Collusion”

“No questions on Collusion”

“No questions on Collusion”

“No questions on Collusion”

 

“No questions on Collusion”

“No questions on Collusion”

“No questions on Collusion”

“No questions on Collusion”

“No questions on Collusion”

“No questions on Collusion”

Source material:

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel.

The Questions Mueller Wants to Ask Trump About Obstruction, and What They Mean

The questions show the special counsel’s focus on obstruction of justice and touch on some surprising other areas.

SOURCE .

=================

NEXT UP…

SOURCE .

EXCLUSIVE: We have obtained a list of four dozen questions Mueller wants to ask Trump. Among them: What does Trump know about pardon offers to Flynn? What discussions did Trump have in June 2017 about firing Mueller?

Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, has dozens of questions for President Trump and is said to be trying to determine whether the president had criminal intent when he fired James B. Comey.

Mueller Has Dozens of Inquiries for Trump in Broad Quest on Russia Ties and Obstruction

SOURCE .

===============

THERE IS MORE COMING, BUT ALREADY FROM WHAT IS PRESENTED WE MUST ASK, AND THEN LOGICALLY CONCLUDE THAT EITHER:

  1. TRUMP IS LYING. S.O.P. .
  2. TRUMP IS STUPID. HE’S TOO IDIOTIC TO KNOW THAT THESE QUESTIONS ARE INDEED ABOUT COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, AND EVEN TREASON.
  3. OR BOTH. WHICH, WHEN IN LIGHT OF THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF TRUMP’S LIFE IS QUITE BELIEVABLE.

========================

Up front I admit I did NOT see NOR hear any of this. BUT I DO trust my sources who DID. So let’s proceed with our next subject:

Both of these are true:

The half hour performance of comedienne Michelle Wolf was vulgar, unseemly, & damaging to our civic discourse. The three-year performance of candidate and president Donald Trump has been vulgar, unseemly, & infinitely more damaging to our civic discourse.

====

AND….

Nothing Michelle Wolf said about Sarah Huckabee Sanders could possibly inflict as much humiliation as SHS inflicts on herself when she stands in front of the country every day and sacrifices her integrity on behalf of Trump.

===============================

A CONCERNED DEMOCRAT SAID:

WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

SO FORGIVE ME IF I DON’T CARE ABOUT WHAT SOME COMEDIAN SAID.

TRUMP IS SLOWLY BURNING THIS COUNTRY TO THE GROUND, ABUSING HIS POWER DAILY AND TRYING TO DESTROY OUR DEMOCRACY.

FOCUS.

ME: WE ACTUALLY ARE/WERE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, BUT YEAH, TRUMP IS DRIVING NAILS INTO AMERICA’S COFFIN AND LAUGHING AND TWEETING ABOUT IT.

=====================

A CONSERVATIVE, TWITTER PATRIOT SAID:

On this day 45 years ago, Richard Nixon spoke to the nation about Watergate: “It is essential now that we place our faith in that system—and especially in the judicial system. It is essential that we let the judicial process go forward…”

Nixon resigned 15 months later.

====================

AND FURTHERMORE…

I can’t believe Michelle Wolf called Sarah Sanders a dog…

Oh wait that was Rush Limbaugh on 12 year old Chelsea Clinton..

But Michelle did call Sarah a pig…

Oh wait that was Donald Trump on Rosie..

What did Michelle say again?

Oh yeah…exposed Sarah for the liar she is.

======

What’s good for the goose…

===============================

Lastly….for now anyway… even dogs don’t like the stench of the Trump-Putin Collusion-Treason Scandal:

CLICK HERE .

THEN CLICK ON IMAGE…SMART DOG.

 -Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer.