Christianity Itself Will Be Hate Speech; On Our Way Now

http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/home/17/opening-brief-filed-in-the-sixth-circuit-court-of-appeals-in-defense-of-christian-fired-by-university-for-speaking-out-against-homosexuality.html

Accessed Apr 14, 2012:

“Today, the American Freedom Law Center filed its opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in defense of Crystal Dixon, a former human resources administrator at the University of Toledo in Ohio, who was fired in 2008 by the University for expressing her personal, Christian viewpoint on homosexuality in an op-ed published in the local newspaper.  Dixon is appealing a lower court’s dismissal of her case, which ruled that the University’s “diversity” interests outweighed her First Amendment rights.”

Karl Marx personally hated Christianity. Why? His father issues. He was rebelling. He was hating what his family liked in order to do that adolescent thing where you define yourself by hating what your family likes, and liking what your family hates.

Like a great comedian, he took his mixed-up personal life and personality quirks, and turned them into a fortune. He built up a political philosophy based on hating the handful of things that hold our society together. For him, in his times, that was the nukelar family, commerce, and religion.

You can either be a normal, American, Constitution-loving democrat, or you can join these Marxists. Everything we hear from “progressivism” is aimed at these three enemies.

This has taken a long time. But the Marxists, I mean us, the democratic party, has gotten into great position on extinguishing Christianity. Never mind that, as we do, we are fulfilling bible prophecy.

This is where “hate speech” has sprung up as an issue, and a legal tool.

In this case, a teacher got fired for adding her opinion to a public discussion – while not on her job.

Here is where we are going. You heard it here first. Actually, it has been stated long ago, but I am just high-lighting the “progress” on this idea.

The goal is a two-step: go to ALL Christian institutions, and QUALIFY them: “do you believe homosexuality is wrong?”

How? Maybe to meet IRS requirements, maybe to be able to hold property title.

If the representative of the church, the pastor and or board or whomever is in charge, will answer “yes.”

That is Step One.

Step Two is to pull the church’s legal status because of their hate speech.

Done.

Will they ‘qualify’ mosques? No. Will they qualify Buddist temples? No. We progressives have rabidly been brainwashed to see Christianity as the evil. This is a matter of history and tradition. It is also a blind spot.

It is far easier to find clear hate, with prompts for action, in other religions. But we have been brainwashed to hate Christianity so fiercely that we are going after the churches.

Also, we will ‘qualify’ religious orgs, if they are Christian, for being involved in charitable efforts, and so on.

We will ‘qualify’ individuals for emplyment in public office.

We will disguise the whole thing with a handful of oher questions to make it less obvious that Christianity is the target. This is the same approach as the “bullying” effort – that is the same thing, aimed at kids in the institution where we already have control, the public schools.

Plus, we will require home-schoolers to ‘qualify’ by asking if there will be faith-based education or materials, or if the Bible will be used for reading lessons.

So, get ready. Do you think this case is the end of the line? Has anyone said anything about “hate” ending if only we can legislate just one more thing?

No – the “hate” effort is barely beginning to roll.

This school teacher’s case shows you where we are going.

 

Michael Savage: Liberalism A Cult

On the raidio yesterday apr 10 2012, radio talk show guy michael savage was on one of his free-form rants. he ended up saying that liberalism is -no, here he did not yet again say a mental disorder – but said it was a cult.

https://thelastdemocrat.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/cognitive-cult-16/

I have talked abt this cult idea with a few other ppl, and it fits. I have to bring this issue up when my wife and I may run into certain topics with family or friends – getting out of a cult takes de-programming, which takes time. People have to gradually re-orient the world view. We humans can only handle so much cognitive dissonance at once.

This has helped me understand other liberals. I beleive the truth and evidence ought to prevail over the way I might want to see the world. But librealism generally nowadays is not set up that way. It is a cult.

It has had to be a cult because it has been the surrupticious wing of the marxist advance. And you cannot in the US just come out and say “I am a Marxist.” Or socialist, although we are thankfully getting to where people are willing to admit to this to some degree, thus getting things out in the open.

You can check out my other post on cults  – up above – but one aspect that occurred to me lately is this cult phenomenon:

The cult is supposedly for some abstract, wonderful good, but is really for some tyrant, so a cult necessarily has to develop a taboo that prohibits questioning the pronouncements of the leaders.

This is the main problem with the Democratic Party: we cannot question ourselves EVAR because the marxists are using the democratic party to work their way into the bastion of capitalist cultural hegemony, and they cannot do this if exposed. So, you cannot question the democratic party.

This was clearly evident with the recent James O’Keef stunt played on Eric Holder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw

Basically, O’keefe goes up on the 2012 primary day in Atty Gen Holder’s neighborhood, and asks to vote under the name of Erik Holder. Hilarity  – or revolution – ensues.

We democrats have been upset lately because the Rebuplicans have figured out how we keep winning elections when we have tiny, non-voting constituencies (we commit voter fraud).

The Republicans figured this out, and came up with a simple, reasonable solution: you need to have a photo ID to rent a video from Blockbuster or check out a library book.

Problem solved.

What have we democrats said, in response? We have decided that no, this is not a test of our system, but is just a ‘stunt’ and we should pay this no attention – ‘pay no mind to the man behind the curtain !’

My social media democrat friends roundly blogged the party line: not newsworthy and no threat to democracy.

Sad. They have no  ability to see how the voter ID idea is necessary for a decent election, because they cannot question the part line – they are cult members. They were waiting and yearning for a repsonse, and as soon as one emerged, they were quick and eager to accept it, and twiit it.

They are cult members. They have been brainwashed to believe in the TRUTH as provided, and to NEVER question the representatives of the truth.

The best way to build the democratic party would be to stay focused on the mission, and watch out for threats and problems. Like when the LaRouchers infiltrate.

But we don’t. We can only be a party of “Yes Men.”

So, we deserve what we get.

 

Michael Savage: Liberalism A Cult

On the raidio yesterday apr 10 2012, radio talk show guy michael savage was on one of his free-form rants. he ended up saying that liberalism is -no, here he did not yet again say a mental disorder – but said it was a cult.

https://thelastdemocrat.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/cognitive-cult-16/

I have talked abt this cult idea with a few other ppl, and it fits. I have to bring this issue up when my wife and I may run into certain topics with family or friends – getting out of a cult takes de-programming, which takes time. People have to gradually re-orient the world view. We humans can only handle so much cognitive dissonance at once.

This has helped me understand other liberals. I beleive the truth and evidence ought to prevail over the way I might want to see the world. But librealism generally nowadays is not set up that way. It is a cult.

It has had to be a cult because it has been the surrupticious wing of the marxist advance. And you cannot in the US just come out and say “I am a Marxist.” Or socialist, although we are thankfully getting to where people are willing to admit to this to some degree, thus getting things out in the open.

You can check out my other post on cults  – up above – but one aspect that occurred to me lately is this cult phenomenon:

The cult is supposedly for some abstract, wonderful good, but is really for some tyrant, so a cult necessarily has to develop a taboo that prohibits questioning the pronouncements of the leaders.

This is the main problem with the Democratic Party: we cannot question ourselves EVAR because the marxists are using the democratic party to work their way into the bastion of capitalist cultural hegemony, and they cannot do this if exposed. So, you cannot question the democratic party.

This was clearly evident with the recent James O’Keef stunt played on Eric Holder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw

Basically, O’keefe goes up on the 2012 primary day in Atty Gen Holder’s neighborhood, and asks to vote under the name of Erik Holder. Hilarity  – or revolution – ensues.

We democrats have been upset lately because the Rebuplicans have figured out how we keep winning elections when we have tiny, non-voting constituencies (we commit voter fraud).

The Republicans figured this out, and came up with a simple, reasonable solution: you need to have a photo ID to rent a video from Blockbuster or check out a library book.

Problem solved.

What have we democrats said, in response? We have decided that no, this is not a test of our system, but is just a ‘stunt’ and we should pay this no attention – ‘pay no mind to the man behind the curtain !’

My social media democrat friends roundly blogged the party line: not newsworthy and no threat to democracy.

Sad. They have no  ability to see how the voter ID idea is necessary for a decent election, because they cannot question the part line – they are cult members. They were waiting and yearning for a repsonse, and as soon as one emerged, they were quick and eager to accept it, and twiit it.

They are cult members. They have been brainwashed to believe in the TRUTH as provided, and to NEVER question the representatives of the truth.

The best way to build the democratic party would be to stay focused on the mission, and watch out for threats and problems. Like when the LaRouchers infiltrate.

But we don’t. We can only be a party of “Yes Men.”

So, we deserve what we get.

 

CO2 and Warming: “Cutting Edge” or “Settled?” NASA Can’t Decide

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/12/nasa-swipes-back-at-former-astronauts-over-climate-change/

“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate.”

What can you say. In “Raising Arizona,” there is that funny scene where the guys rob some farmers bank. They tell everyone to be still, then to get out their wallets or something. One farmer, as farmers are known to be down-to-earth and literal, notes that If’n you want us to move, we can’t be still, and if’n you want us to be still, we can’t move.

Well, NASA-payrolled climate researcher  James Hansen has spent years developing the global warming panic – and faking the global temp data so we wil be scared out of our money and freedom. finally, some handful of NASA astronauts and engineers got upset with this show, and wrote a letter to NASA, and released it publically.

Word to the wise: get on the correct side now; the wheels are about to fall off the AGW thing. If you are in some position of respectability, and have made some commitment to the AGW panic, it is time to jump ship.

In response to this independent letter, NASA made a statement: they study cutting-edge issues, such as the potential relation between CO2 and climate.

So: is the science settled? Or is it cutting edge?