T Minus 2 Hrs 20 Min and Counting…

I could barely sleep last night. Our long, national nightmare is about to be over.

More to follow…

Comments

  1. George Michalopulos says:

    This little vidclip says it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1IMUIbdspQ&t=5s

  2. An extreme narcissist, sexual predator, serial liar, KGB mole will now become YOUR POTUS. Be proud America. Four years of disaster and the erosion of America and American values; be proud!

    • Peter A. Papoutsis says:

      Ah, no…that happened under Obama. This is Trump. As for the the rest…well…my wife doesn’t let me listen to fake news. Hehehe.

      Peter

      GO TRUMP!

    • Anonymous says:

      Birtherism.
      Unneeded 100 billion dollar walls.
      American exceptionalism.

      I only like the last. The rest are political voodoo tactics for the aging US population.

    • Don’t cry Sam Sham the snowflake man.

  3. The eight year horror show has concluded. However, you can count on the Marxist who just left the White House, to oppose traditional Christian values until the day he dies. Do not fall asleep America! We have been given another chance. The fight has just begun!

  4. Rob Mrofka says:

    My sole wish for the new administration is that they find the path away from polarizing, hatred fueled politics on both sides of the aisle toward a rational dialogue in which left and right can rise above it all. We all need not all be of the same or similar viewpoint. The marketplace of ideas has vendor stalls for all voices. Extreme intolerance has fractured that concept and I sincerely believe that we all (including those in public service) need a guiding hand to find our way back to a norm of polite, but lively, discourse leading to innovative solutions, common ground and harmony. I am not naive to believe that Trump, any government or group of human beings is totally capable of producing such a result. Personally, I will submit my appeal to a Higher Authority. I can only hope that others might do the same in the manner in which they are most comfortable. The fuse that continues to burn must be extinguished very soon.

    • George Michalopulos says:

      Rob, not possible at this point. Polarization may be a good thing as it clarifies moral truths. I mean really, what do I have in common with a purple-haired, half-head shaved lesbian cry-bully who thinks that abortion is a sacrament?

      Either she’s deluded or I am.

      • M. Stankovich says:

        I would suggest that what you have in common is our humanity, created in the image and likeness of our God; an indelible image, though the likeness has been marred and obscured by the consequences of disobedience and sinfulness, to which we have all willfully surrendered ourselves in this world. The only difference, really, is the degree to which any us has fallen. And ultimately, we seem to have abandoned the directive of the Scripture to

        be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that you suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Pet. 3:15-20)

        Polarization does not clarify, but rather confuses and distances us from our mission and obligation to the world, to share “a reason of the hope” that is in us, and to carry the message of the salvation of our God even to those who appear to us to be the most loathsome and despicable examples of our humanity. What other “hope” remains in this world of delusion, apart from the Truth we have been entrusted to deliver?

        • “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”

          Best post in a long time, for me at least, Mr Stankovich. My first inclination was to agree with George, but after reading your post I must agree with you, and Rob. That, or slowly become that which we hate. I’m ashamed to say how many times I’ve failed that duty.

          • George Michalopulos says:

            Dino, you are correct. I struggle mightily with the fear that I could indeed be “something that we hate.”

            Hence my desire to fight according to Christian just war doctrine: defensively, proportionately and with a care towards forgiveness and repentance. As well as the humility to realize that even if my arguments are more correct, they cannot be 100% infallible. Thus, neither can I.

            One way in which I accomplish this on Monomakhos is by allowing all viewpoints. It’s not only because of my belief in the First Amendment but because it keeps me honest. Also, it would be a sign of intellectual cowardice if I blocked people whose points I didn’t agree with. (Exceptions are those who are defamatory.)

            • “And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and saw him, and said to him, Zacchaeus, make haste and come down, and received him joyfully. But when they saw it, they all complained, saying,”He has gone to be a guest with a man who is a sinner.”-Luke 19:5-7

              George, last Sundays Gospel reading came in handy. Jesus set the example how we should first treat the most vile of society, face to face. Loving our Lord with all our heart and turning hearts, and souls to Christ is first and foremost our mission on earth, regardless of the color of their hair.

              In so far as Social media debate, and conversations, with all stripes of people, and opinions, you are far from guilty of not allowing alternative opinions into your blog. In doing so, and by spending countless hours making Monomakhos work, and spreading it’s message as it does, good or bad, I can’t imagine, that you will not be rewarded from above. I for one, and countless others have been taught, and exposed to topics from all angles, resulting in better formed understanding of worldly, and spiritual affairs, which almost always seem intertwined.

              • George Michalopulos says:

                I agree. Zacchaeus was indeed “vile”. However unlike the screaming Mimi’s who are literally kvetching in the streets, vandalizing building and burning trashcans, Zacchaeus at least was willing to “see” Jesus.

                Let me give you an example: last Sunday, our church was at the annual March for Life. It was massive. About a dozen feminazis and their beta-male hangers-on tried to march alongside with us, goading us. We occupied the street they occupied the sidewalk (to give you a clearer picture).

                One of the leaders, a woman carrying a sign with a broken coat-hanger was trying to goad us. I stepped to the side and said, “did you get a permit like we did?” She called me a racist because I was wearing a ball cap that had the Rebel flag on it. I said “this is about heritage, not race”. Then she said “well, your marching behind those men [pointing to the Knights of Columbus who were leading the march]. They are named after Columbus and he was a racist!”

                I said, “Really, he was a racist?” So I thought about it and asked her: “Do you know who else was a racist? Your patron saint, Margaret Sanger. She even spoke to the ladies’ auxiliary of the KKK!”

                She couldn’t respond.

              • George, I think we understand each other. So in addition to social media, you were also face to face with evil. Funny, but at first, I was going to give you a hard time, with the Confederate flag hat, in that you were provoking the protester. But! After a second thought , an American flag hat would no doubt seem racist to her as well. Example: The Kapernick kneel during the national anthem.

                The true irony is that the woman with the coat hanger, does not realize, that abortion is not only evil, but also racist towards our black brothers and sisters. Hell, Trump is sending in federal agents, and if need be troops, into Chicago’s inner city, to stop the blood bath in Obama’s old barrio. Yet President Trump is labeled the racist. Welcome to the world of Alice in Wonderland!

                • Correction, abortion cannot be racist. But those who provide and promote free abortions to our black community, is a form of racism, as is our current welfare and prison system. I’m pleased with President Trumps swift action in so far as bringing back common sense to our nation.

            • Rob Mrofka says:

              George, I like the open attitude that you apply to this site. I may stick around for a while to try to keep you honest (God help you! πŸ˜‡). None of us can lay claim to the Truth, that is only within the province of our God. Nevertheless, a vigorous, honest, principled and civil discussion among us might bring us all, collectively, closer to the discovery of the Truth. And that is more than worth it to me to participate here. You are stuck with me for now, good sir!! Besides, I have so much to learn on my path to becoming an Orthodox Christian.

              • George Michalopulos says:

                Rob, I’ll gladly be “stuck” with you!

                At the very least, you understand what discourse and argument is about. Sad to say, most liberals today don’t. It’s all screeching and yelling and worse.

        • No, fool, He did not come to bring peace, but a sword. Christ is the criterion over which we are polarized. Some are in Him and He is in them. Some are His enemies. That is a glorious polarization and it is progressing quite well according to His Plan.

      • Rob Mrofka says:

        George, I respectfully disagree. Polarization, or restated differently, I am right and you are the epitome of evil because of your views, the way you look or the way express your views, clarifies nothing. It pits human being vs. human being in an arena in which divine intervention or guidance will be given short shrift and ignored. The only thing that comes out of that sort of conflict is who should be crowned as the biggest a-hole IMO.

        Maybe I am naive, but I don’t think so–I have been around the block a few times and have the scars to prove it. πŸ™‚ What I do have in common with the individual that you described is that we are both members of the human race and children of our God. Despite our respective failings, His love extends to us equally. We are both very imperfect. Neither of us is right in an absolute sense. Both of us have likely committed colossal errors, with respect political issues and otherwise, perhaps, in our lifetimes, but don’t want to admit it. And maybe, just maybe, with the grace of our God, we can each pull our heads out of our respective asses to find common ground that is founded on the Truth. His Truth.

        Thus, I cannot dismiss your hypothetical woman without further consideration. Will she persuade me? Not likely. Will our discourse lead to an incremental understanding that makes sense to both of us? Maybe. Would we both benefit from turning to God as guide and arbiter? Absolutely, sir, no doubt in my mind.

        For the record, I am not some bleeding heart surviving on tofu in a cardboard shack in Big Sur. I have a conservative bias, but I am willing to listen and consider all opposing viewpoints, including those that I find repugnant at first blush.

        Talk to me. Explore views and ideas with me. The alternative? Lace up those skates, take to the ice, drop the gloves and lets go, eh. πŸ˜‰

        • George Michalopulos says:

          Rob, you’re obviously a reasonable and sane man. Those snowflakes who were crying on the camera and torching trashcans for no reason are impossible to deal with in an Oxford Union style debate.

          Of course we are all children of God, however the violence of the left towards those who disagree forces people like me to shoot first and questions later when it comes to being in proximity with such rabid individuals.

          Did you see what Madonna said yesterday? About blowing up the White House and Sen Pocahontas Warren more or less agreeing with her? Think about it, besides the President and his family, there are at any given moment some 500 servants, assorted cabinet secretaries, journalists, Secret Service agents and West Wing functionaries there at all times. They all have families. Their lives are precious to them.

          Under such circumstances, the only positive thing that could arise from the polarization which they impose, is moral clarity. It’s not ideal to operate under such hatefulness but there you go.

          • Michael Bauman says:

            Madonna comes close to actual treason I.e. advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. She should at least get an official public visit from the Secret Service and the FBI to remind her what is free speech and what is not. Warren should be censured and thrown out of public office.

          • “Rob, you’re obviously a reasonable and sane man.”

            You are too gracious, George, my friend. He is neither reasonable nor sane. That is why he wants to distract you with pointless argument. He’s only doing the bidding of his master, the prince of this world, who was a liar and murderer from the very beginning.

            • George Michalopulos says:

              Misha, I appreciate your support but (refreshingly) Rob seems to be intellectually honest.

              • Ok, George.

                I was harsh because I misread him:

                “George, I respectfully disagree. Polarization, or restated differently, I am right and you are the epitome of evil because of your views, the way you look or the way express your views, clarifies nothing.”

                He was delineating a perspective, not criticizing you. I get that now after re-reading it.

                Regardless, polarization is warranted. “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.” If that is not polarization, I don’t know what is. Also the stuff in the Apocalypse of John about being “lukewarm” and spit out.

                Christ ain’t playin’. He be serious.

      • George,

        What you have in common with the purple haired young lady in question is that you are both human and created in the image and likeness of God. What you do not have in common with her is that she has a devil that possesses her to act as she does, whether it entered her willfully or not I cannot say. But that should be obvious from the advertising.

        And polarization is a very good thing: You are seeing it work forward now in the news and society. Sides are being chosen and lines drawn.

        • Rob Mrofka says:

          Image and likeness of God. Check.

          Obviously possessed by an evil spirit based on the advertising. Huh??? How do you reach that conclusion? If a person’s message is repugnant to your own personal values, it follows that they are obviously possessed and evil? Do you have any idea how arrogant that is? Are you a board certified clinical psychiatrist or otherwise vested with knowledge and authority to make that pronouncement? So, I vigorously disagree with your premise. Am I obviously possessed?

          I find your second conclusion that polarization is a very good thing equally flawed. You are aware that polarization and political divisiveness started in spades with David Axelrod and Obama’s 2008 campaign coordinators. Its desired effect to spur the base to get to the polls worked. Unfortunately, the barren political landscape that was left behind resulted in governmental gridlock after passage of Obamacare. This continues to be the state of our government. Back to your proposition, was polarization a very good thing during the prior administration? Or is it just a good thing now because one party controls Congress and the White House? If the latter it would appear that your stated principle is a wee bit skewed by your political bias.

          Sides being chosen and lines being drawn is a good thing? Hmmm. Was the same phenomenon a “good thing” in Lebanon in 1975? There was definitely polarization along religious lines that ultimately resulted in a civil war, a quarter million deaths, displacement of over a million people and virtually levelled Beirut and other urban areas. Would you still argue that polarization and divisiveness is a “very good thing.” Or are you using it as a battle cry to rally kindred members of right to join in conflict with the left, perhaps to the extent of a civil war in this country? If so, your concept of a “very good thing” deviates radically from mine and that of many others sharing conservative values.

          • George Michalopulos says:

            Rob, if I may. You don’t have to have the spiritual elevation of an Elder Paissius or St Seraphim of Sarov to discern the spirit behind much of what passes for advertising today. The sexualization of children is becoming more egregious as well. This can’t be good or squared with the Gospel.

            While it would be judgmental to damn its purveyors to hell, God does grant us enough discernment to realize that something is horribly amiss in our popular culture. We’re not talking rocket-science levels of intellectual acumen here, just the ordinary, everyday common sense of ordinary, everyday common people.

          • Gail Sheppard says:

            Rob, we’re not talking about something that’s repugnant to us. Were talking about something that is repugnant to GOD and, yes, if GOD finds it repugnant, it is because he can no longer see Himself in that person. In the absence of grace is evil.

          • Rob,.

            I missed this reply of yours. Allow me to expand on the idea.

            “Would you still argue that polarization and divisiveness is a ‘very good thing.’ Or are you using it as a battle cry to rally kindred members of right to join in conflict with the left, perhaps to the extent of a civil war in this country? If so, your concept of a ‘very good thing’ deviates radically from mine and that of many others sharing conservative values.”

            I’m delighted he’s burning down the house and we could use a civil war IMHO, shooting or non-shooting. It seems we already have the non-shooting kind.

            If that seems radical to you, upwards of 50+ million murdered unborn seems “radical” to me. What also seems radical to me are the effects of the feminist matriarchy on American men and children. I see it everyday because I’m in close proximity to the homeless and working poor. It is galling and evil.

            So yes, I’ll take a civil war, thank you very much. Nothing to lose and everything to gain. And if it comes to that, dear Rob, I shall look for you on the field of battle.

            • M. Stankovich says:

              And which field of battle would that be exactly, Scott? You are an exaggerated, overblown, purveyor of “outrageous” commentary in a literal sandbox; an internet creation, pounding out your own personal take on a world in which you cannot function. You experience no consequence for your obnoxious, frequently hateful, and always narcissistic stroll through your leisurely day of reading the news on a laptop. And you seem to have no qualms of filling every thread on this site – off topic or not – with entitled, white male beta-faggotry Dude, you didn’t even vote? Seriously? Was that because of boredom, attention deficit, or have you lost the right?

              And only on the internet can Chauncey the Gardener paint himself, to the background singing of La Marseillaise, as the defender of alpha-males, children, the homeless, and the working poor. Madonna Mia. You would “take a civil war” – shooting or not – and you’ll look for someone on the battlefield? Yeah, Scott, Rommel into Egypt you are not. Just remember, when you hear the sound of Marvin Gay singing the National Anthem at the NBA All-Star Game in 1983, breathe a sigh of relief; it’ll be me and a couple of the “colored guys” (and maybe Gail) you admit are smarter than you, come to rescue you from under the bed. “You! Yes, you! Stand still laddy! All in all it was just a brick in the wall.”

  5. Put not your trust in princes or sons of men in whom there is no salvation.

    • Rob Mrofka says:

      I agree. The guidance and wisdom of our God is the only path to the Truth, wisdom and our salvation. To think otherwise is utter folly.

    • “Put not your trust in princes or sons of men in whom there is no salvation.”

      The same God who inspired that verse became One of the “sons of men” in Whom is our only salvation, the Prince of Peace. Furthermore, this same God anointed David to lead Israel in routing His enemies. That David sinned was a matter between him and God (and God’s prophet, Nathan). Yet the Messiah is also called the “Son of David”. Later, even King Cyrus of Persia is called “anointed” by Scripture.

      So be careful how you read Scripture to avoid proof-texting.

      One should not put ones trust in mere mortal men. However, if God is leading a man to correct transgressions of His Law, that is par for the course.

  6. George Michalopulos says:

    For what it’s worth, Michelle took off for a solitary vacation in the Caribbean, leaving her husband to be alone with a certain ambassador and his “husband.”

    http://www.tmz.com/

    • Nate Trost says:

      It’s nice that George Michalopulos is debunking his own “alternative facts” right in his own posts with his own links. TMZ, which he linked, reported both the Obamas went to Branson’s island. And it’s not the only report:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/24/obama-family-arrive-caribbean-island-necker-sir-richard-bransons/

      Protip: If you are going to link something, you might want to actually visit it and make sure it is supporting your claim instead of directly contradicting it.

      • George Michalopulos says:

        Got it from Drudge, Nate. I didn’t make it up.

        • Nate Trost says:

          So rather than checking if Drudge was right, you posted the claim, including a link to a site you thought was supporting proof, but actually directly contradicted what you were posting? Because you couldn’t be bothered to actually read what it was you were linking?

          George Michalopulos wrote
          Got it from Drudge, Nate. I didn’t make it up.

          Such heroic taking of responsibility! Not even an admission that you blew it.

          So are you going to blindly repost from Drudge without checking next time? Or will you anyway, because you don’t care whether or not it’s true, just it’s that salacious and negative about a public figure you don’t like? Because that really seems to be how you roll, based on observed history.

          George “too good to check!” Michalopulos everyone!

          • George Michalopulos says:

            Nate, you’re being immature now. No, I didn’t “check Drudge first.” Don’t have to as I’m not a professional journalist. Unlike that reporter who ran with the story that the MLK bust was removed from the Oval Office and later had to apologize, that guy probably makes more money than me and that’s his job.

            In other words, I’d take you more seriously if you were an equal opportunity truth-seeker/critic. But clearly you’re not.

            For what it’s worth, Drudge has been more right more often than anybody else in the MSM. Remember Monica’s semen-stained blued dress?

            • Nate Trost says:

              You complain about a reporter who got something wrong, but then corrected his report and apologized for it (which is how it is supposed to work, and why they are a professional journalist) while you simultaneously double down and refuse to acknowledge or apologize for your spread of inaccurate slander. And you have the delusion to call me immature?

              You sure seem to be making an argument of “I don’t get paid to be a reporter, so I shouldn’t have to care whether I spread lies on the internet”. Which, I suppose is an argument, if you want to appear to have no personal integrity.

              Let us revisit this statement of yours again:

              George Michalopulos wrote
              Don’t have to as I’m not a professional journalist.

              You are essentially proclaiming to the readership of your blog, that they shouldn’t presume anything you write is true, because that isn’t actually a concern for you. And in this particular exchange with me, it is apparent that if someone does challenge you on you having posting something factually incorrect, your response isn’t a ‘mea culpa, I screwed up’, but rather an increasingly elaborate series of justifications for why you should take no responsibility or accountability for spreading untruths. And boy do you act like a ‘snowflake’ when you get called out on it.

              • George Michalopulos says:

                Not really. And you could call me many things, but “snowflake” isn’t one of them.

                However as long as you refuse to answer certain fundamental questions, the inference will continue to be that you are cowardly.

          • Nate

            George’s site. He makes the rules. He pays for the microphone. You don’t like it, go somewhere else and bitch. You whine like a dog in heat.

            • George Michalopulos says:

              Better yet, why doesn’t Nate start his own website? I’d be willing to bet like most proglib websites, all commentary would be shut down in 2 seconds flat.

              BTW, anybody notice how the MSM websites increasingly don’t allow commentary? I started noticing that about a year ago. That’s one reason I believed that Trump would win: the peasants weren’t buying the official news stories.

              • Nate doesn’t get Trump.

                Does Trump know exactly how big the crowd was? No. He was guessing and shooting from the hip probably. That’s allowed. Does he know that there were 3 million fraudulent voters in HRC’s camp in the last election? No, he was guessing and shooting from the hip. That’s allowed.

                It’s allowed because it doesn’t matter one way or the other.

                Now, what he is really doing is stirring up a hornet’s nest to facilitate an investigation as to what really did happen. He saw them minimizing the crowd numbers and playing it down, so he throws out some bombast. Same with the plurality that Hillary won.

                You may recall St. John Chrysostom’s attitude toward those who do not deserve to hear the truth due to their corruption. He allowed lying in that circumstance.

                Trump is just throwing it out there strategically. Words are weapons. He’s not concerned about the veracity of what he says. He’s concerned with the effect of what he says. He’s a businessman. He knows how to play this game.

                Business is war. And Trump has made his business the rejuvenation of America. The enemy has no right to the truth. Treat them like mushrooms. Feed them sh*t and keep them in the dark.

                • George Michalopulos says:

                  Brilliant analysis, Misha. BTW, now even the Corporate Media has admitted (for now) that Hillary was the recipient of 800,000 illegal votes.

                  When all is said and done, Trump will win a twofer: 1) the actual number of fraudulent votes will be known and 2) voting machines in the future will be “hardened” thereby making it near-impossible for Democrats to rig the system.

                  The left doesn’t even understand the demons that they have unleashed.

                  • Nate Trost says:

                    What an argument: liberals are bad, so Trump is justified in telling huge public lies, according to no less than St. John Chrysostom.

                    Trump’s ego, pride and vanity can’t handle a less than record setting inauguration crowd, or that he lost the popular vote by millions, so he has to make up lies to assuage his inner torment.

                    No investigation is ever going to document millions, hundreds of thousands, tens of thousands, or likely even mere thousands of fraudulent votes out of 136 million cast, because they simply don’t exist.

                    The belief that they do, or the incorrect assertion that “the Corporate Media has admitted (for now) that Hillary was the recipient of 800,000 illegal votes.” belong on yet another episode of The Fantastic Delusions of George Michalopulos, a new Netflix series coming soon.

                    • George Michalopulos says:

                      Unfortunately, Nate, it seems that rather than “lying” Trump is actually baiting you progs. Did you catch the latest news? That they just found 800,000 illegal votes last November?

                      Go back and read what I wrote last summer about what I called “Trump Traps”.

                      P.S. I’m glad you like St John Chrysostom! (Don’t tell your prog friends though!)

                    • Trump does tend to shoot from the hip, perhaps a bit to much for my comfort as well as that of many others. However, he is dealing with dishonest, ideologically captive zealots and therefore a touch of zealotry here and there is not out of order.

                      Stings, doesn’t it?

                      Better to be civil but, after all, we do live in a fallen world

          • George Michalopulos says:

            In the meantime, here’s an analysis of how Trump is playing the press and libs in general. It’s a form of “gaslighting” and chumps like you fall for it every time.

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/01/26/white-house-press-media-donald-trump-glenn-reynolds-column/97042872/

            I’ve long suspected (for about a year now when Trump said that Obama “schlonged” Hillary back in Oct 2015) that Trump was playing the press for fools (see my “Trump’s Trap), now I’m convinced of it.

            • https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/opinion/a-lie-by-any-other-name.html?ref=opinion&_r=0&mtrref=www.realclearpolitics.com&gwh=9083E6E005A16E4DB50303E3B91B137D&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion

              Full tilt boogie meltdown. They can’t handle the fact that he can look them in the eye and tell them any damn thing because he has no respect for them as arbiters of the truth.

              Misha is purrrrrrring full throttle.

              “It don’t get no better than this.”

            • Nate Trost says:

              Translated George Michalopulos: The President of the United States is engaging in psychological behavior typical of emotionally abusive spouses, only targeted at the country he is supposedly serving, and George Michalopulos is loving it!

              • George Michalopulos says:

                Well, let’s put it this way: if I had my druthers I’d rather we lived in a more Jeffersonian polity in which dignitaries debated in Parliamentary fashion and they were for the most part fine, upstanding men.

                Unfortunately, we don’t live in such a time. When you have vile creatures like Barney Frank or ignoramuses like Sheila Jackson Lee who thinks we went to Mars, then you need somebody with a 2 by 4 to knock some sense in the system.

              • John Pappas says:

                This is really crackpot stuff. Not even Chris Hayes says stuff like this.

            • Peter A. Papoutsis says:

              Thanks George. I am actually surprised the old dinosaur press hasn’t figured this out yet. They are that invested in their progressive bs that they are doubling down and being made to look like the fools they really are.

              Ps who actually believes the lies and fake news coming our of them?

              Peter

  7. Seraphim98 says:

    “I’ll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too!”

    That exchange just got….sad.

  8. A Word of Caution

    God is love, He is not hatred. He has wrath, but He is not wrath.

    We can surmise that Islam was inspired by the devil insofar as it explicitly denies the divinity of Jesus Christ. Christ is God. To create a religion which is programmed to expand in all directions, conquering everyone on earth, with only temporary treaties – and to deny the Trinity within that religion – is to invite the devil to set up shop.

    But let us not become like our enemies.

    We need to endeavor to convert the Muslims. Those we cannot convert, we need to contain. And it is only when they cannot be converted or contained – when their religion does what it is programmed to do – that we resort to warfare.

    There is always a danger that we can be overcome by our emotions, lose perspective, become arrogant and lose our souls. I have no desire to be antichrist or a false prophet. I will leave that to others. I serve only Yahweh..

    President Trump seems to be doing the right things, IMHO. But the line of good and evil runs through the human heart. We are in a delicate situation. The Saudis and Sunnis in general have a lot of power and money. Erdogan in Turkey has a cult of personality that venerates him as a god.

    We don’t need tin gods like Erdogan. We need strong Christian leaders. Christian leaders show restraint.

    Tradition, as I read it, states that in the end the final victory goes to Christ. We need not win the final battle ourselves. Let us be on God’s side. This may require sacrifice. It will certainly require courage. My philosophy is that living in the world allows one the right of self-defense and defense of others. That is in keeping with Sacred Tradition.

    To be dispassionate means to control ones emotions, not to be controlled by them.

    My mission is not to eradicate Muslims. My mission is to defend the Church against all enemies of Christ. Let us do that as mercifully as possible. With God, all things are possible.

  9. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/7/14454370/trump-autocracy-congress-frum

    Ezra Klein wrote the above piece and it is obviously from the Fem/Perv perspective; however, he touches on something interesting which should actually reassure rather than alarm Congressional Republicans: the system that the Founding Fathers set up was assumed to work against partisan division, not enable it. They saw partisan division as a despotism as awful as tyranny. America was founded to be a dominant party system – not a system where two parties perpetually vie for control with sound policy being divided, along with foolishness, between the two. That binary model is diabolical and fundamentally at odds with what the Founders intended. You can see it from Washington’s speech quoted in the above article. You can also see it when you consider that the Vice President was originally supposed to be the one who came in second in the Presidential election.

    Some of the Founders thought partisanship inevitable; however, the system designed by Madison was an attempt to nip partisanship in the bud.

Speak Your Mind

*