Dershowitz destroyed the Dems!! WEASEL says, “Heh…”
Author: Papa Giorgio
Ken Starr – Impeachment
“At this particular juncture in America’s history, the Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently.” (LEGAL INSURRECTION)
Pam Bondi – Impeachment
Pam Bondi, the former attorney general of Florida who is a member of the Trump impeachment legal team, outlined on Jan. 27 the concerns she said the president had about potential corruption on the part of the Bidens in Ukraine. Bondi pointed to numerous news reports raising questions about Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
Does Trump “Own” Evangelicals? Rush Limbaugh Attacked Falsely
A Facebook friend posted a link to the following story from PATHEOS saying Limbaugh said Trump “owned” Evangelicals… (more below audio):
A Patheos article was just published saying Rush Limbaugh said “Trump owns Evangelicals,” then it made reference to Christ owning us by Calvary, etc. Here is an excerpt (“A Fresh Warning for Evangelical Trump Supporters”):
…On Friday, one of Trump’s media sycophants and enablers, Rush Limbaugh, made a statement on air that was both alarming, and in a sense, prophetic.
To paraphrase, Limbaugh stated that Donald Trump “owns” American evangelicals.
Yes, he did use the word “owns.”
For those of us who are evangelical and recognize our freedoms come from God, paid for by the shed blood of Christ, the idea of being “owned” by any worldly politician is rather repugnant….
The full context is this (the fuller is in the audio):
- “Because the Republicans Party cannot win anything without their votes. There are at bare minimum 24,000-million Evangelical votes in America, and maybe more… and guess who owns them? And long before today, Donald Trump.”
Rush Limbaugh was merely saying the Pro-Life movement (Evangelicals) took over the Party platform and transformed the GOP. The Republicans since Reagan have essentially owned the GOP, and the Republicans can trust/depend [own] their votes. And this wasn’t repugnant under Dubya, Reagan, etc… only “the bad orange man.”
This attack on Rush reminds me of Chuck Todd asking “why you do not trust the CIA” to a Republican who merely said he did not trust John Brennan. As if Brennan encapsulates the totality of the CIA. Or Democrats repeating ad nauseum that Republicans and Trump do not believe Russia attacked the 2016 election [when it was Republicans who first warned Obama of this upcoming event in 2014] because they say Ukraine attacked our 2016 election. As if both cannot be true (FOOTNOTE 565).
People with bias do not take a break and think things through. The above political positions are reminiscent of Many have built a straw-man argument out of the teaching of literal interpretation, alleging that we have to take everything in the Bible literally, e.g., “the trees of the field shall clap their hands” (Isaiah 55:12). The Bible as well as politicians and talking heads, contains, and use definite types of figurative language, including metaphor, simile, hyperbole, and anthropomorphism. But all of these are easily detectable and separable from the literal text itself. Unless you have a bias.
I also made the point of a very recent tragic event to drive home the point:
…you miss the point of my OG article. I have a very committed Christian friend (5-pointer to the max). He said, “RIP Koby. You were the greatest.” Susan Wright’s linked article could apply “just as forcefully” to him and the many other people praising Koby. // “We true Christians know who the greatest is…. The Alpha and Omega…. The Greatest bought us on Calvary with His she’d blood…” — etc., etc.
Everything you have posted from her (that I have seen at least), runs along similar veins. She just emotes here dislike of Trump.
As others here do as well. ?
Some Examples of NYTs Faux Pas’
DAILY CALLER zeroes in on the first claim:
The New York Times has issued an absurdly written correction to a story about President Trump and Russian meddling.
White House reporter Maggie Haberman falsely claimed in her report that 17 intelligence agencies all agreed Russia tried to interfere in the presidential election, reiterating a thoroughly debunked liberal talking point.
[….]
Haberman’s story repeated a claim liberals began circulating following a declassified report from the Director of National Intelligence in October on the Russian influence campaign. Since the DNI heads up 17 agencies, it was easy to frame the declassified report as a consensus built on 17 separate assessments. In fact only the three agencies who reviewed the matter signed off on that consensus.
The former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said as much in a May Senate hearing. The assessment was a “coordinated” product from the FBI, the NSA and the CIA, he said, working under the “aegis” of the DNI. It was not signed off on by 17 agencies. That makes sense, as some of the agencies — Coast Guard intel perhaps most obviously — would have little to do with election hacking.
The Daily Caller News Foundation also addressed the claim in a fact check of a Hillary Clinton interview in May where she again repeated the phrase. Certainly, none of the other agencies disagreed on the record, but that’s to be expected if they didn’t conduct a separate analysis…..
(See also THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER)
MY PAST POSTS ON THE MATTER:
More on the second claim regarding the Steele Dossier being Russian propaganda — even though it was touted for over 2-years in the pages of the NYT:
Who knew? …On Saturday, the New York Times published a story about how the “Mueller Report [was] likely to renew scrutiny of the Steele Dossier.” The Times reports that the dossier’s contents could even have been a Russian disinformation operation aimed at then-candidate Trump. Which comes as no surprise to conservatives who have been following the story.
Remember, the Steele dossier came about because the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC paid a law firm, which then hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Trump. Fusion GPS then paid a former British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele, who leaned on contacts close to the Kremlin to get information that was used in the preparation of the dossier.
Is it any wonder that those Russians, who wanted to sow discord in the United States, would jump at the opportunity to provide misinformation, knowing that the media would eat it up?…
ALSO (hat-tip RED STATE):
As it turns out, back in January 2018, New York Times reporter Scott Shane, the lead reporter on this story, was a member of a panel that somewhat resembled the Star Wars cantina scene at the International Spy Museum titled “Unpacking the Russia Story with the Experts Who Have Covered It.” The video is cued up to the appropriate cut for your convenience:
And regarding the New York Times correction to a story about Trump’s tax plan:
The New York Times issued an embarrassing correction after a report that attacked President Donald Trump’s recently passed tax plan got the numbers about as wrong as could be.
The lengthy Feb. 23 feature, headlined, “Get to Know the New Tax Code While Filling Out This Year’s 1040,” sought to detail how Trump’s tax plan would hurt middle-class families. A hypothetical couple — christened Sam and Felicity Taxpayer — would see their tax bill rise by nearly $4,000, according to the story.
Then came the correction saying the family would actually see taxes go down.
The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman mocked the Times piece before the Old Gray Lady issued the correction.
“Even perennial tax-increase advocate Warren Buffett is now acknowledging the economic benefit of the Trump tax cuts, but The New York Times newsroom still won’t concede the point,” Freeman wrote on Feb. 27. “Will criticism from a liberal law professor persuade The Times to reconsider?”
Well, The Times did reconsider — but it may still not be 100 percent accurate…..
(FOX NEWS)
A FEW MORE
The New York Times had to issue an embarrassing correction to its story about another decades-old accusation of sexual misconduct against US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh — because it failed to tell readers that the alleged victim doesn’t even remember the incident.
As The Post reported in its front-page story Monday, the Times piece omitted that crucial fact.
The Times article had been adapted from a book on Kavanaugh by two of its reporters, Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly. The newspaper claimed that Max Stier, a former classmate of the justice years ago at Yale University, had allegedly seen Kavanaugh pull his pants down at a party, and his friends then pushed his penis into the hands of a female student….
(NY POST | See also the NEW YORK INTELLIGENCER)
5 Biggest Screw-Ups by The New York Times So Far This Year
- Corrects Claim That 17 Intel Agencies ‘Agree’ on Russia
- Mistakes Parody Twitter Account for North Korea’s Official One
- Flubs Story on Food Stamps and Soda—Twice
- Editor Forced to Correct Statement on Attorney General
- Corrects Editorial Attacking Sarah Palin With Debunked Conspiracy Theory
The New York Times was forced to issue four corrections to a failed hit piece against Foundation for Defense of Democracies founder Mark Dubowitz.
Last week, the Times published a piece aimed at portraying Dubowitz as corrupt, unethical, and incompetent because he opposed former President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and applauded President Donald Trump for withdrawing the U.S. from the horrendous pact.
The embarrassing article falsely claimed that a GOP donor with financial ties to the United Arab Emirates gave FDD $2.7 million to fund an anti-Qatar conference; that Dubowitz “paid himself” twice as much as others who head think tanks; that Dubowitz created his own salary to far exceed his peers in the industry; and that the FDD is connected to Israel’s Likud Party.
Every single one of those claims is completely false, and the Times was forced to issue a lengthy correction admitting that its error-ridden piece had to be updated.
As noted by the correction, here’s the truth: Dubowitz’s compensation is determined by a board of directors, meaning he doesn’t arbitrarily create his own salary; his annual salary is almost identical with other think tank leaders; the FDD is not directly tied to the Likud Party in any way; and GOP donor Elliott Broidy gave $360,000 for the FDD conference, not $2.7 million….
These weren’t minor errors where someone’s name was misspelled or the date of an event was wrong. This was intended to be a disgusting, salacious, hit piece against Dubowitz because he gave credit to Trump for pulling out of the Iran deal.
The piece is uniquely embarrassing because of the volume of the embarrassing errors and how easy it should have been for editors to catch the erroneous claims.
In fact, the errors are so egregious it appears like the Times deliberately inflated figures and peddled falsehoods to ramp up the heat on Debowitz….
ETC., ETC., ETC….
Coronavirus and Media Hype
First a post by ACE OF SPADES, with a large excerpt from the NY POST article:
The breathless reporting from pretty much every source, with the exception of Michael Fumento in the NY Post is typical of the no-nothings in the media and their tenuous relationship with logic and the Scientific Method and pesky little things like data and numbers and statistics.
And the facts are very, very thin. We don’t know much other than what the Chinese government is telling the world, and I believe them about as much as I believe that Epstein killed himself. Maybe it’s worse than they are reporting. Maybe it is overblown to deflect attention from other things in China, like Hong Kong! And maybe it is just like most of the other diseases that emerge from China and then fizzle in developed countries because we are healthier, cleaner, have better medical care and more efficient ways to get that care to the people who need it.
I have no idea how this will shake out. Is it the next pandemic, with hundreds of millions dead? Maybe, but I doubt it. Is it the next SARS? Probably. And how many Americans died of SARS? From the CDC:
- In the United States, only eight persons were laboratory-confirmed as SARS cases. There were no SARS-related deaths in the United States. All of the eight persons with laboratory-confirmed SARS had traveled to areas where SARS-CoV transmission was occurring.
For all of American medicine’s faults, we do a pretty good job of minimizing the severity of things like the flu and TB and Measles and Pertusis and all sorts of diseases that are major killers in other parts of the world. Will I take a trip to Wuhan? hell no. But until there is evidence of this virus being a significant health threat in the developed world I will not worry too much.
Here is the NEW YORK POST:
A CNN reporter broadcasts from Wuhan, China, on the recent viral outbreak. There is nobody near who could possibly infect him — unless the cameraman has Guinness Book of Records coughs and sneezes. So why does he insist on wearing a blue surgical mask while talking?
It’s called “drama,” which is badly needed, because there appears to be nothing very special about this outbreak of the 2019-nCoV or Wuhan virus. It should actually be called the DvV, or Déjà vu Virus, because we have been through these hysterias before. Over and over. Heterosexual AIDS, Ebola repeatedly, the H1N1 swine flu that was actually vastly milder than the regular flu and, especially, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003.
Once you start debunking mass hysteria over outbreaks, it gets easy, because the same patterns repeat themselves.
The best remedy for all epidemic hysteria is perspective. How is this new outbreak different and thus potentially more dangerous from other diseases we have dealt with in the past or are dealing with now?
Wuhan is repeatedly labeled “deadly” — but so is every other virus most people know about. But especially deadly? Nearly 600 cases have been confirmed with at least 17 reported deaths.
[….]
What we can say for sure is that Wuhan will be a lot worse in China, simply because health care there is vastly inferior. It appears that, like flu, Wuhan usually kills through often treatable secondary infections. Well, treatable in the West. You’d be surprised at how many potentially deadly diseases (malaria, TB) Americans get that wreak havoc in much of the world but kill essentially none of us.
It also appears those most likely to die of Wuhan virus fit the same profile as flu fatalities: people over 65, those with compromised immune systems and those with serious pre-existing conditions. Two of the 17 Wuhan dead were 89-year-olds with pre-existing conditions; the youngest was 48 and suffering from diabetes and a stroke.
Contagiousness is highly important, of course. But so far, there is no evidence that Wuhan, first reported more than three weeks ago, is more contagious than influenza or spreads differently.
Those are the important factors; everything else is noise and tinfoil-hat paranoia.
[….]
It’s inherently bad because it’s new, we’re told. So were swine flu and SARS.
Chinese health officials warned it could mutate further to either become more deadly or more contagious. Same was said about the aforementioned outbreaks. Actually, viruses usually mutate to become less deadly, to preserve the host body and hence themselves.
The media are correct in saying the closest comparison here is SARS. It also was first reported in China and was what’s called a coronavirus. But while they want you to remember SARS as akin to the Black Death with cries of “Bring out your dead!,” fact is, there was a grand total of only 8,098 cases, of whom 774 died. Then the disease simply disappeared. More than 7,000 of those cases and about 650 of the deaths occurred just in mainland China and Hong Kong. The United States had just 75 cases and zero deaths.
By contrast, the CDC estimates about 80,000 Americans died of flu two seasons ago.
So if you want, buy a (probably worthless) surgical mask to play “twins” with those “courageous” TV newsmen. Or you may consider that flu shots are still available.
FOOTNOTE 565
FOOTNOTE 565
And HUGH HEWITT notes footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s legal briefing as evidence for Trump’s concern with Ukrainian interference with our 2016 election:
Video Description:
Hugh Hewitt reads footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s brief (PDF can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/rjh9dst). Hewitt then brings it up with Byron York when he was on to discuss his article: “As Trial Begins, the White House Strikes Back” (https://tinyurl.com/utv35mm). As an aside, here is the full extent of Russian interference with the 2016 election, and why (rightly or wrongly) Mueller indicted 13 Russians:
- President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE | see my post as well: FIONA HILL’S FALSE DILEMMA)
(Click To Enlarge)
(Text with Links)
President Trump also raised concerns about corruption. He first raised these concerns in connection with reports of Ukrainian actions in the 2016 presidential election. Numerous media outlets have reported that Ukrainian officials took steps to influence and interfere in the 2016 election to undermine then-candidate Trump, and three Senate committee chairmen are currently investigating this interference.565 565 See, e.g., Sharyl Attkisson, Timeline of Alleged Ukrainian-Democrat Meddling in 2016 Presidential Election, Epoch Times (Nov. 27, 2019); Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused Meddling’ in U.S. Election, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2018); Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stem, Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017); Roman Olearchyk, Ukraine’s Leaders Campaign Against ‘Pro-Putin ‘ Trump, Financial Times (Aug. 28, 2016), [Editor’s Note: the FT article is behind a paywall… see STONE COLD TRUTH to see article]; Press Release, Senators Seek Interviews on Reported Coordination Between Ukrainian Officials, DNC Consultant to Aid Clinton in 2016 Elections (Dec. 6, 2019). ARTEM SYTNYK This alongside this audio where you can hear former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (put in place by Obama/Hillary State Department), Artem Sytnyk, admitting that he “helped” Hillary during the 2016 U.S. presidential election (see more at WAYNE DUPREE) — is devastating to the House Managers case!
Trump’s Legal Team, Day One (PLUS: Footnote 565)
What follows are some strong arguments (I think) against the Democrats case against Donald J. Trump’s impeachment. However, FIRST and FOREMOST, here is the Trump Legal Team’s first day in the Senate defending Trump and responding to the House Managers for impeachment of a sitting President:
PJ-MEDIA has a must read for those interested, they explain each one succinctly… which I merely:
10. Ambassador Volker testified there was no effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens
9. Ambassador Taylor testified there was ‘no linkage’ between military aid and investigations
8. Ambassador Taylor testified Ukraine was unaware the lethal aid was being withheld
7. Ambassador Sondland testified Trump didn’t want anything from Ukraine, no quid pro quo
6. Ambassador Sondland testified he had no evidence of a quid pro quo other than his ‘own presumption’
5. Lt. Col. Vindman admitted Hunter Biden wasn’t qualified to be on Burisma’s board
4. Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams both agreed Hunter’s position at Burisma had the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest
3. Ambassador Taylor basically admitted Hunter Biden’s position at Burisma ‘raises questions’
2. Marie Yovanovitch confirmed that there was concern in the Obama State Department about Hunter Biden’s conflict of interest at Burisma
1. George Kent said there were legit concerns about Hunter Biden, and Burisma should be investigated
ARI MELBER
RIGHT SCOOP sets this clip with the followin: “This is pretty great. Ari Melber actually told the MSNBC panel and their audience that the Democrats did not prove their case that Trump committed obstruction of Congress, and everyone flipped out.” By “flipped out,” they mean Lefties responses to this commentary, which you should see on RS’s site:
JOHN BARRASSO
This, however, was great… via GATEWAY PUNDIT who said “Deputy White House Counsel Mike Purpura opened the White House defense of President Donald Trump with video of Adam Schiff’s fake call and transcript he read during the House impeachment proceedings. Mike Purpura played the video immediately after taking the podium on Saturday. And there Schiff was lying his face off for the whole world to see….”
Conference Chairman @SenJohnBarrasso:
When @realdonaldtrump‘s counsel read the transcript of the phone call and then played the video of Adam Schiff with his fictionalized made up script…
The blood drained from Adam Schiff’s face as they played that video. pic.twitter.com/IYHtgJroqg
— Senate Republicans (@SenateGOP) January 25, 2020
PATRICK PHILBIN
LEGAL INSURRECTION discusses the first day of the Trump teams response to the House managers. In this first day they challenged the credibility of Schiff, which the above commentary shows as well. LI says this: “It seemed that almost every time I turned on the TV, he was talking and talking and talking. Schiff is the person most behind the impeachment push and the biased House proceedings. We all know that. But the Republican trial team, particularly Patrick Philbin, skewered Schiff today with Schiff’s own prior lies and deceptions. Philbin addressed Schiff’s prior claim to have knowledge of evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with Russia, evidence that not even Mueller found, showing Schiff’s opinion’s and claims to have evidence to be unreliable…”
JONATHAN TURLEY
Professor Jonathan Turley notes WELL a major misstep by the House Managers accusing the Senate (among others) of a cover-up… bombastic presentations in the House may be the norm. But not in the Senate:
Prof. Turley: Nadler made a “major blunder” by insulting senatorshttps://t.co/A82urQTV6P pic.twitter.com/ApcCOTvbDL
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) January 23, 2020
FOOTNOTE 565
And HUGH HEWITT notes footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s legal briefing as evidence for Trump’s concern with Ukrainian interference with our 2016 election:
Video Description:
Hugh Hewitt reads footnote 565 from Trump’s legal team’s brief (PDF can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/rjh9dst). Hewitt then brings it up with Byron York when he was on to discuss his article: “As Trial Begins, the White House Strikes Back” (https://tinyurl.com/utv35mm). As an aside, here is the full extent of Russian interference with the 2016 election, and why (rightly or wrongly) Mueller indicted 13 Russians:
- President Donald Trump rejects the narrative that Russia wanted him to win. USA Today examined each of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by the Russian-based Internet Research Agency, the company that employed 12 of the 13 Russians indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for interfering with the 2016 election. It turns out only about 100 of its ads explicitly endorsed Trump or opposed Hillary Clinton. Most of the fake ads focused on racial division, with many of the ads attempting to exploit what Russia perceives, or wants America to perceive, as severe racial tension between blacks and whites…. (must read the entire article at LARRY ELDER’s SITE | see my post as well: FIONA HILL’S FALSE DILEMMA)
(Click To Enlarge)
(Text with Links)
President Trump also raised concerns about corruption. He first raised these concerns in connection with reports of Ukrainian actions in the 2016 presidential election. Numerous media outlets have reported that Ukrainian officials took steps to influence and interfere in the 2016 election to undermine then-candidate Trump, and three Senate committee chairmen are currently investigating this interference.565 565 See, e.g., Sharyl Attkisson, Timeline of Alleged Ukrainian-Democrat Meddling in 2016 Presidential Election, Epoch Times (Nov. 27, 2019); Andrew E. Kramer, Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused Meddling’ in U.S. Election, N.Y. Times (Dec. 12, 2018); Kenneth P. Vogel & David Stem, Ukrainian Efforts to Sabotage Trump Backfire, Politico (Jan. 11, 2017); Roman Olearchyk, Ukraine’s Leaders Campaign Against ‘Pro-Putin ‘ Trump, Financial Times (Aug. 28, 2016), [Editor’s Note: the FT article is behind a paywall… see STONE COLD TRUTH to see article]; Press Release, Senators Seek Interviews on Reported Coordination Between Ukrainian Officials, DNC Consultant to Aid Clinton in 2016 Elections (Dec. 6, 2019). ARTEM SYTNYK This alongside this audio where you can hear former Director of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (put in place by Obama/Hillary State Department), Artem Sytnyk, admitting that he “helped” Hillary during the 2016 U.S. presidential election (see more at WAYNE DUPREE) — is devastating to the House Managers case!
Whistleblower and Schiff Staffer In 2017 Coup Talks (UPDATE)
(UPDATE: I had to edit out the name of Eric Ciaramella in the description in order for YouTube to publish this audio. The monolithic thought is amazing to me, and the 1984 beginnings are unmistakable. Obviously no Federal or State law says a person’s name cannot be used… and, in fact, the “whistleblower” statute merely protects the person from on the job harassment by superiors. Not to nix his name from the public. Weird.)
Real Clear Investigations and Red State (linked below respectively) have great stories on these two colleagues (comrades?) discussing how to remove Trump from office 2-weeks after he was inaugurated — insurance policy 2.0 two-weeks after Trump was inaugurated (!):
- Whistleblower Was Overheard in ’17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump (RCI)
- New: Colleagues Overheard Eric Ciaramella, Alleged Whistleblower, Sean Misko Discuss How to Remove Trump from Office (RS)
……Source 1 said, “Just days after he [Trump] was sworn in, they [Ciaramella and Misko] were already talking about trying to get rid of him. They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda. They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”
Sources told Sperry that Misko had been the Schiff staff member whom Ciaramella had “reached out to” for “guidance” before submitting his complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson.
Sperry writes:
The coordination between the official believed to be the whistleblower and a key Democratic staffer, details of which are disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the narrative that impeachment developed spontaneously out of the “patriotism” of an “apolitical civil servant.”
Two former co-workers said they overheard Ciaramella and Misko, close friends and Democrats held over from the Obama administration, discussing how to “take out,” or remove, the new president from office within days of Trump’s inauguration. These co-workers said the president’s controversial Ukraine phone call in July 2019 provided the pretext they and their Democratic allies had been looking for.
[….]
Source 1 said, “They were popping off about how they were going to remove Trump from office. No joke.”
[….]
He had also heard Ciaramella tell Misko, “‘We can’t let him enact this foreign policy.’“
Source 2 said he reported what he’d overheard to his superiors. “It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”
The co-workers, [sources 1 and 2] didn’t think much more about the incident…..
China, Phase I (Michael Pillsbury)
Hugh Hewitt interviews Michael Pillsbury, author of “The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower“, about the trade-deal with China. Show aired 1-15-2020
Bush’s “Bullhorn” Moment – Bob Beckwith’s Story
(This will be a repost every 9/11) Bob Beckwith is the FDNY firefighter who stood next to George W. Bush during his famous bullhorn speech at Ground Zero, just days after September 11th, 2001. His story is incredible, and he shares it with Glenn in a perfect tribute to remember the first responders and other lives effected by 9/11/2001.
Free Tibet? Human Rights and Eastern Thought (Updated)
UPDATE!
VIDEO DESCRIPTION:
The original video is a must watch via DAILY CALLER: “Women’s March: Fetuses Don’t Count!” (YOUTUBE). However, this portion of the video caught my attention, as, I love worldviews and press the idea that one should follow them consistently. At the 5:37 mark of the original video, a woman says babies [children] are aborted because of Karma. I have a whole chapter on this in my book (chapter 2): “Reincarnation vs. Laws of Logic“. However, I am using this video to update a post discussing the same: “Free Tibet? Human Rights and Eastern Thought”.
THE MAIN ISSUE is this… if this woman follows her philosophy to an internally consistent manner, I guarantee her beliefs will deteriorate. This is what I posted [in part] on my FACEBOOK:
…But at the 5:37 portion you get to hear someone living out their worldview logically. That is, pantheism.
Except if you apply this to healthcare, women’s rights, and other factors — all the reasons she has to be at this march collapses!
Could you imagine if someone asked what you thought about slavery and you said it was their karma to be slaves. Which is true in the pantheistic worldview… But we, as humans created in God’s image, know this to be wrong… Innately.
Not only that, but, the Patriarchy, corporations, and an Orange man in office “oppressing you” is all your actions from a previous life building up karma so you are experiencing [and deserve this experience/oppression] this event[s]. In other words, her being at a woman’s march is inconsistent with her worldview.
Which leads me to posit that she (like many other “spiritual people”) use religion to make themselves feel good. “Selective karma” in her case.
(Originally Posted February 2011)
RELIGION NEWS BLOG updates an older story about Christian persecution by Buddhists:
THIMPU, Bhutan, February 1 (Compass Direct News) – Bhutan officials have given assurances that freedom for Christians to worship “within the cultural norms” of the tiny Buddhist nation in the Himalayas will not be violated, but they remain ambiguous on whether and when the miniscule community will obtain legal identity.
The cultural norms include a prohibition against proselytizing. But Bhutan Minister for Home and Culture Lyonpo Minjur Dorji told Compass there are provisions in the Constitution of Bhutan that can be interpreted as allowing room for Christianity in “the Land of the Thunder Dragon,” as the country is called.
The country’s agency regulating religious organizations was expected to make a decision last December on whether it could register a Christian federation representing all Christians, but an official at the agency said the matter requires further investigation. Meantime, Home Minister Dorji indicated no change was necessary.
“What else do you need?” he said. “Ask Christians if they have been prevented from meeting together for worship. Two of our parliamentarians are Christian. Christians need not fear the government.”
In case you are note aware of the situation, there has been some pretty extreme reactions to showing Christian DVDs:
A human rights organisation has learned that Bhutanese police are preparing to arrest two more Christians for their involvement in showing a movie about Jesus.
Bhutan is a small country in South Asia, located at the eastern end of the Himalayas and bordered to the south, east and west by India and to the north by China.
International Christian Concern (ICC) reported that Prem Singh Gurung has been sentenced to three years imprisonment for showing the film. He has been jailed in the town of Gelephu.
On October 22, ICC wrote a letter to the representatives of Bhutan at the UN protesting the sentencing of Gurung.
ICC said that Gurung has the right, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to express his religious beliefs. That includes the right to receive and exchange information and ideas through any media.
Here is an example for those who want to free a nation or stop persecution using an Eastern philosophy in doing so (Example taken from my chapter in my book):
….If you are born into a family that is well off, and you have a good family relationship, then you are being rewarded for some good work[s] from a previous life. If you are born into a famine-ridden area, destitute, or mentally or physically incapable of caring for yourself, then you are in retribution for the “cause and effect” law of karma. This is the reason that there is no firm “right or wrong” in this life according to Eastern thought. All people who are treated unfairly or unjustly — like slaves were in America, racial wars, famine and disease in undeveloped nations — are merely reaping what they sowed in a previous incarnation. In addition, to interfere with this process — outlaw slavery, end racial strife, feed and heal the hungry and sick — is to interfere with a person’s karma, which is strictly forbidden in the eastern philosophies! (Alternatively, doing so has no intrinsic value – e.g., no real positive moral benefit, as any benefit must be illusory as well.)
It is laughable that some defend this doctrine tooth and nail. However, if really believed, they would come to realize there is no real good or evil! The Inquisitions, the Mumbai terror killings at the hands of Muslims, as examples, were merely the outgrowth of the victim’s previous karmic lives. Therefore, when those here defend karmic destiny in other posts speak of the horrible atrocities committed by religion, they are not consistently living out their philosophy of life and death, which are illusory. The innocent victims of the Inquisitions, terror attacks, tsunamis, or Crusades then are merely being paid back for something they themselves did in a previous life. It is the actions said people did prior that creates much of the evil upon them now. So in the future when people who are believers in reincarnation say that Christianity isn’t what it purports to be because of the evil it has committed in the past, you should remind them that evil is merely an illusion (maya – Hinduism; sunyata – Buddhism) to be overcome, as karmic reincarnation demands.
Even “Love” is a foreign concept to Buddhists. In a conversation about this exact fact you will see that theism, specifically Christian-Theism is a far superior concept in that it presupposes “love” as a reality. And in fact, “love” existed eternally in the triune Godhead n Christian theology:
I wish to illustrate with a conversation (unfinished by the way) between myself and a Zen Buddhist. This conversation can almost happen with any religious Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, or the like. The conversation takes place after an interesting post by the person on his blog about self-defense, the Dalai Lama, WWII, and the Buddha. I will post my reply to his original thought, and then he responds, followed again by me. (Keep in mind I am using our “blog” names, they are almost like “handles” like in the movie Top Gun):[42]
MY INITIAL ENGAGEMENT:
Does the idea of “violence” as a moral good or a moral evil truly exist in the Buddhist mindset? What I mean is that according to a major school of Buddhism, isn’t there a denial that distinctions exist in reality… that separate “selves” is really a false perception? Language is considered something the Buddhist must get beyond because it serves as a tool that creates and makes these apparently illusory distinctions more grounded, or rooted in “our” psyche. For instance, the statement that “all statements are empty of meaning,” would almost be self refuting, because, that statement — then — would be meaningless. So how can one go from that teaching inherent to Buddhistic thought and say that self-defense (and using WWII as an example) is really meaningful. Isn’t the [Dalai] Lama drawing distinction by assuming the reality of Aristotelian logic in his responses to questions? (He used at least three Laws of Logic [thus, drawing distinctions using Western principles]: The Law of Contradiction; the Law of Excluded Middle; and the Law of Identity.) Curious.
THEY CALL HIM JAMES URE, RESPONDS:
You’re right that language is just a tool and in the end a useless one at that but It’s important to be able run a blog. That or teach people the particulars of the religion. It’s like a lamp needed to make your way through the dark until you reach the lighthouse (Enlightenment, Nirvana, etc.) Then of course the lamp is no longer useful unless you have taken the vow to teach others. Which in my analogy is returning into the dark to bring your brothers and sisters along (via the lamp-i.e. language) to the lighthouse (enlightenment, Nirvana, etc.)
I RESPOND:
Then… if reality is ultimately characterless and distinctionless, then the distinction between being enlightened and unenlightened is ultimately an illusion and reality is ultimately unreal. Whom is doing the leading? Leading to what? These still are distinctions being made, that is: “between knowing you are enlightened and not knowing you are enlightened.” In the Diamond Sutra, ultimately, the Bodhisattva loves no one, since no one exists and the Bodhisattva knows this:
“All beings must I lead to Nirvana, into the Realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind; and yet, after beings have been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana. And why? If in a Bodhisattva[43] the notion of a “being” should take place, he could not be called a “Bodhi-being.” And likewise if the notion of a soul, or a person should take place in him.
So even the act of loving others, therefore, is inconsistent with what is taught in the Buddhistic worldview, because there is “no one to love.” This is shown quite well (this self-refuting aspect of Buddhism) in the book, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha. A book I recommend with love, from a worldview that can use the word love well. One writer puts it thusly: “When human existence is blown out, nothing real disappears because life itself is an illusion. Nirvana is neither a re-absorption into an eternal Ultimate Reality, nor the annihilation of a self, because there is no self to annihilate. It is rather an annihilation of the illusion of an existing self. Nirvana is a state of supreme bliss and freedom without any subject left to experience it.”
MY FINAL RESPONSE
I haven’t seen a response yet. Which is fitting… because whom would be responding to whom? Put another way, would there be one mind trying to actively convince the other mind that no minds exist at all?
Here’s another way to see the same thing, Dan Story weighs in again:
It may be possible that nothing exists. However, it is impossible to demonstrate that nothing exists because to do so would be to deny our own existence. We must exist in order to affirm that reality doesn’t exist. To claim that reality is an illusion is logically impossible because it also requires claiming that the claim itself is unreal—a self-defeating statement. If reality is an illusion, how do we know that pantheism isn’t an illusion too?[44]
Another author put it thusly, “if pantheism is true (and my individuality an illusion), it is false, since there is no basis by which to explain the illusion.”[45][46] You see… The challenge then becomes this: “if reality is an illusion, how do we know then that pantheism isn’t an illusion as well?”
… most people assume that something exists. There may be someone, perhaps, who believes that nothing exists, but who would that person be? …. no one ever consciously tries to defend the position that nothing exists. It would be a useless endeavor since there would be no one to convince. Even more significantly, it would be impossible to defend that position since, if it were true, there would be no one to make the defense. So to defend the position that nothing exists seems immediately to be absurd and self-contradictory.[47]
Another problem in pantheism is God’s inability to deal with or solve the problem of evil.[48] Dan Story points out what should be becoming obvious, “He is the cause of it (remember, all is God).” Mr. Story continues:
Pantheism and the New Age may try to ignore this problem by claiming that sin and suffering is merely illusion. But let’s bring this philosophy down to the real world. Try to convince a man dying of cancer or a parent who has just lost a child that evil and suffering are illusion. Even if evil is an illusion, the illusion itself is real. In either case, evil exists. As Geisler noted, “If evil is not real, what is the origin of the illusion? Why has it been so persistent and why does it seem so real?… How can evil arise from a ‘God’ who is absolutely and necessarily good?”[49] The answer must be that if pantheism is true, God cannot be good, and He must be the source of evil.[50]
Between karmic destiny and the god[s] of pantheism and its dealing with pain and suffering (and consequently the promotion of it) by claiming everything is an illusion is not an answer at all. Must we not live as if this illusion is reality?…
FOOTNOTES:
[42] I use quite liberally in this exchange two resources, they are follows: Michael J. Murray, ed., Reason for the Hope Within, 212-214; Ernest Valea, “Possible difficulties in Buddhism,” Many Paths To One Goal? Found at: http://www.comparativereligion.com/Buddhism.html (last accessed 8-11-09), the main site is: http://www.comparativereligion.com/index.html
[43] “One who has taken a vow to become a Buddha.” David Burnett, The Spirit of Buddhism: A Christian Perspective on Buddhist Thought (Grand Rapids, MI: Monarch Books, 2003), 329. “Celestial” Buddha’s and bodhisattvas are said to be able to assist in guiding believers towards salvation as supernatural beings. These bodhisattvas vary in their rolls and offices as the many gods of Hinduism, from which Buddhism comes. See: Michael D. Coogan, Eastern Religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Toaism, Confucianism, Shinto (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2005), 133-139.
[44] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense, 112-113.
[45] Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, See the Gods Fall: Four Rivals to Christianity (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), 210.
[46] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense, 112-113.
[47] L. Russ Bush, A Handbook for Christian Philosophy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991), 70.
[48] Michael J. Murray critiques quickly the Ramanuja and Madhya philosophies:
Stated in terms of Christian terminology, Ramanuja’s view implies that every soul that has ever existed endured an eternity in “hell” (i.e., the cycle of rebirths) before it could enter “heaven” (i.e., union with God). Now unlike Madhya, Ramanuja claims that God freely, and beginninglessly, created the world, and all existing souls, out of his own being. This latter claim, however, presents Ramanuja with a very severe problem of evil: that of reconciling his belief that God is perfectly good and all-loving with God’s ultimate responsibility for the beginningless existence of souls in a state of sin and suffering. The problem of evil faced by Ramanuja here is much more severe than that faced by Western theists. First, unlike Western theists, Ramanuja cannot say that this evil is a necessary consequence of God’s creating creatures with free will. Although the suffering of a soul in any individual life could be blamed on the bad karma resulting from its free choices in previous lives, the fact that the suffering is beginningless — and hence infinite — cannot be blamed on free choice. The reason for this is that, no matter what free choices souls make in this life, or have made in any previous life, they cannot change the fact that they have beginninglessly endured an infinite amount of suffering; but one cannot be responsible for what one was powerless to change. Followers of Ramanuja, therefore, do not seem to have recourse to the traditional free will theodicy invoked in the West to explain evil. Second, the amount of evil that needs to be explained is infinitely larger than that faced by Western versions of theism, since, according to Ramanuja each soul has committed an infinite number of evil acts and endured an infinite period of suffering. Unfortunately, as Julius Lipner points out, neither Ramanuja, nor any other orthodox Hindu theologian, ever attempted to address this particular problem of evil since they took the eternality of the world and souls as an “unquestioned datum for life and thought.” Unlike Ramanuja (and Western theism), however, Madhva’s theology largely avoids the problem of evil. The reason for this is that in his theology God is neither responsible for the beginningless existence of souls in a state of bondage, nor for the fact that they continue to remain in bondage, this being ultimately the result of their inherent, uncreated nature. Nonetheless, his system suffers from two drawbacks when compared to Ramanuja’s view. First, Madhva’s system leaves one with a plurality of ultimates — souls, matter, and God — without accounting for their existence. Although this is not a devastating criticism of Madhya, everything else being equal, views that hypothesize a single, unified source of everything (such as God), are in virtue of their simplicity, philosophically more satisfactory. Second, even though Madhya claimed to base his view on scripture, from the perspective of many orthodox Hindus his theology seems to contradict both those passages of Hindu scripture that appear to imply a deep sort of identity between God and souls and those that appear to imply that the world emerges out of God.
Reason for the Hope Within, 200-202.
[49] Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 189 (emphasis added).
[50] Dan Story, Christianity on the Offense, 113.