This is a short but poignant video excerpt of Bono’s speech at Georgetown University. This video excerpt also appears in Dinesh D’Souza’s excellent docu-movie “America – Imagine the World Without Her.”
I highly and extremely recommend everyone to experience D’Souza’s current excellent number-one docu-movie called “Hillary’s America – The Secret History of the Democrat Party.” If you have not seen it yet, you need to see it especially before election day, see it with a friend or family. It is available for streaming on many platforms and available in Blu-Ray or DVD. http://hillarysamericathemovie.com/
But I also recommend “America – Imagine the World Without Her” http://americathemovie.com/ which came out two years ago, but is truly timeless, and for that matter also “Obama’s America” which came out in 2012 http://www.dineshdsouza.com/movies/2016-obamas-america/ . “Obama’s America” caused Obama to basically have a little temper tantrum and, with the backing of the US Government go after Dinesh and had him locked up, literally. You can learn more about this when you see “Hillary’s America.”
But I really want to talk about “America – Imagine the World Without Her.” D’Souza correctly shows in this movie how before the founding fathers put the idea of America on paper, really, basically the only system that the world knew was that of the conquest ethic, meaning the strong conquer the weak and then take what they have, without remorse. This is so profound and people really need to have a history lesson and wrap their brains around this. Many left-leaning idealists will argue that America was also founded under this conquest ethic, though this may be somewhat true but these same lefties like to revise the narrative of history and ignore facts. They choose to ignore the very good things about the founding of America and ignore the fact that America was the only entity or country “…the first to claw its way out of darkness and put that on paper” (–Bono [see video above]), the first to challenge the class system and the caste system and the monarchy, or an oligarchy or dictatorship or the first to challenge fiefdom. The first to challenge all these archaic systems in favor of the new American idea of liberty and having a small government of the people, for the people and by the people allowing everyone to choose their own destiny through a capitalistic free society.
It seems like every election season, especially during a presidential election season that many Americans seem to lose sight of the bigger picture and get mired in silly trivial details. Many seem to be going through the motions as if we were picking a winner such as in American Idol, or Dancing with The Stars. Why do so many seem to have the mindset that we are choosing a kind of king or queen or dictator. They lose sight of the American idea the way our government is set up. If I have cancer I am not putting all my efforts into choosing an oncologist I am doing whatever I can to choose to destroy my cancer, choosing a competent oncologist may be a part of that, but by no means is it the endgame. The endgame is to alleviate or destroy the cancer. We should be choosing leaders who will do everything within their power to uphold what the Founding Fathers have set up, the Constitution of the United States, and to destroy the cancer or the thought of doing anything different. I have always thought of leftist ideas as sort of a cancer attacking the American idea that must be destroyed and defeated in the arena of ideas.
It always seems that during a presidential election we are choosing either a Republican, someone who wishes to conserve the founding father’s vision or we are choosing a Democrat someone who would rather transform America into something different but in reality the Democrats always are choosing to go back to one of the archaic systems mentioned above except give it a new name or a new twist. By any means the lefties or the Democrats are always trying to hide their true intentions that of changing the way America is governed with an always ever-expanding, oligarchical federal government.
Leftists are very creative in the way they hide their process but mostly they hide it by trying to change the narratives to create an anti-american sentiment. Dinesh D’Souza in his film “America – Imagine the World Without Her” shows us how the left changes the stories and actually creates five very serious indictments against America. These indictments come from revered left thinkers such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn or Ward Churchill. In fact as D’Souza points out Howard Zinn’s book, A People’s History of the United States, even though it is not a true History book is required reading on many campuses of colleges and universities and even some high schools. D’Souza does a very good job at detailing these serious indictments right before he shows how these narratives of Chomsky, Zinn and Ward Churchill are actually false narratives, and therefore these indictments are invalid
Anyways as I stated earlier I highly recommend that you see “America – Imagine the World Without Her” and see for yourself these invalid indictments that many take as gospel truth and also see for yourself that the world is actually a much better place now that the idea of America has been introduced to the world some 250 years ago.
Don’t forget to vote on November 8 but before you vote see D’Souza’s latest, “Hillary’s America – The Secret History of the Democrat Party” especially if you are considering actually voting for Hillary. After seeing “Hillary’s America” don’t be surprised if you find yourself like me never willing to support a member of the Democrat Party ever again.
This is a great article from The DailySignal.com. The Magna Carta is a sort of precursor to the later American experiment. The current American leaders and all of us in general could learn a lot about the pursuit of liberty through the seperation of powers from the study of the Magna Carta
With the president and Congress out of town, Washington, D.C. is very quiet during the holidays, without the long lines one normally sees at museums and capitol attractions. So it was a good time last week to take my family to see a wonderful exhibit at the Library of Congress, jointly sponsored by the Federalist Society, of one of the only four existing manuscript copies of the 1215 Magna Carta signed by King John at Runnymede.
On June 15, we will celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, one of the most consequential documents in the history of the law and liberty. It was the basis for establishing the principles that led to the many rights that we take almost for granted today. These include due process of law, the right to a jury trial, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, and the theory of representative government.
While Magna Carta only secured the rights of the barons and “freemen,” as the exhibit carefully explains, “this medieval charter, through centuries of interpretation and controversy, became an enduring symbol of liberty and the rule of law.”
It really is amazing as one walks through the exhibit and reads the translations of certain parts of Magna Carta, to see the principles being outlined that have become such an accepted part of our rule of law 800 years later. For example, Chapter 39 provides no freeman will be seized, dispossessed of his property, or harmed except “by the law of the land,” a phrase that eventually became “due process of law.” This very concept is incorporated in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which guarantee that no “freeman” in America can be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Chapter 39 of Magna Carta guaranteed that no freeman can be punished without “the lawful judgment of his peers.” This principle is the basis for our concept of the right to a trial by jury, which is guaranteed in Article III of the Constitution, as well as the Seventh Amendment.
Magna Carta also guaranteed immunity from illegal imprisonment. This principle led directly to the development of the concept of habeas corpus, the right to sue the government to force it “to produce the body,” an individual who has been illegally imprisoned without due process of law. This was so important that it was incorporated into Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which provides that “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Most importantly, Magna Carta established the principle of the rule of law and checks on the power of the king (the executive in modern parlance). In other words, the concept integral to our own republic that no man is above the law, not even the president. Chapter 61 of Magna Carta stipulated that 25 barons would be selected to ensure that King John complied with the terms of the charter and if he violated the terms, they had the authority to “distrain” the king (seize his properties) until he complied. That principle became a “symbol of the supremacy of the law over the will of the king.”
King Edward I’s 1297 reaffirmation of Magna Carta (a copy of which is on display at the National Archives) said that any act of the king violating the charter “should be undone and holden for naught.” This fundamental principle was incorporated into the entire structure of our system of government as outlined in the checks and balances inherent in the Articles of the Constitution. And what King Edward I said must be done is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States does when the president exceeds his authority, as evidenced by its recent decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning,in which the Court held that President Obama’s recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. Thus, the president’s action was “undone and holden for naught.”
Two of the people in Washington who might learn the most from visiting this exhibit and its explanation of the importance of the rule of law and the limits on the power of the executive are President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. Unfortunately, as two of my Heritage Foundation colleagues explain in a recent paper, “abusive, unlawful, and even potentially unconstitutional unilateral action has been a hallmark of the Obama Administration.”
The exhibit at the Library of Congress displays the Lincoln Cathedral Magna Carta, which has been in the possession of the Lincoln Cathedral literally since its issuance in 1215, a concept a little hard for Americans in our relatively new country to quite comprehend.
Excellent article below from Breibart.com.
At least businesses like Google know when to call it quits and stop throwing money down a rat hole. Too bad liberal-socialists-progressives in government don’t know when to quit, as they continue to throw hard-earned taxpayer money down any rat hole they can find. Actually liberal-socialists-progressives love to find some secret rat holes in which to throw tax payer cash and claim they are doing it for the common good. They would never, never admit to wasteful government spending and let citizens keep more of their money. For example just look at liberal-socialist-progressive President Obama and his continually propping up many failed projects. I am now thinking about projects like Solyndra, that promised a bright future with renewable energy but failed in a big way. Anyways, read further the article below as it shows how Google experts have wisely given up on so-called renewable energy, at least for now.
22 Nov 2014 at Breitbart.com
Some people call it “renewable energy” but I prefer to call it “alternative energy” because that’s what it really is: an alternative to energy that actually works (eg nuclear and anything made from wonderful, energy-rich fossil fuel.)
Now a pair of top boffins from uber-green Google’s research department have reached the same conclusion.
Ross Konigstein and David Fork, both Stanford PhDs (aerospace engineering; applied physics) were employed on a Google research project which sought to enhance renewable technology to the point where it could produce energy more cheaply than coal. But after four years, the project was closed down. In this post at IEEE Spectrum they tell us why.
We came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Why is renewable energy such a total fail? Because, as Lewis Page explains here, it’s so ludicrously inefficient and impossibly expensive that if ever we were so foolish as to try rolling it out on a scale beyond its current boutique levels, it would necessitate bankrupting the global economy.
In a nutshell, renewable energy is rubbish because so much equipment is needed to make it work – steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage – that it very likely uses up more energy than it actually produces.
Yet our political class remains committed to the fantasy that the emperor’s green clothes are perfectly magnificent. Earlier this week, for example, the British government chucked £720 million of taxpayers’ money into a cesspit labelled the Green Climate Fund.
In theory this UN-driven initiative is supposed to help Third World countries cope with the effects of climate change. In reality, all it will do is force on their struggling economies more of the costly, intermittent renewable technologies (wind turbines; solar; etc) which have proved such a disaster for the advanced Western economies.
If we really want to throw money at the developing world so it can combat climate change, then what we should really be doing is insist that it is spent on adaptation projects – not, heaven forfend, ones to do with “decarbonisation.”
Speak the Truth in Love. This article summarizes this position very well.
by Jonathan Parnell published 4/21/2014 at Desiring God.org
Homosexuality is not the only sin mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
It’s not the only sin mentioned, but it is different from all the rest, at least right now. At this moment in history, contrary to the other sins listed here, homosexuality is celebrated by our larger society with pioneering excitement. It’s seen as a good thing, as the new hallmark of progress.
To be sure, the masses increasingly make no bones about sin in general. Innumerable people are idolaters, not to mention those who are sexually immoral, or who commit adultery, or who steal and are greedy and get wasted and revile neighbors and swindle others. It happens all the time. And each of these unrepentant sins are the same in the sense of God’s judgment. They all deserve his wrath. And we’re constantly reminded that “such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11).
Concerning Popular Opinion
But as far as I know, none of those sins are applauded so aggressively by whole groups of people who advocate for their normalcy. Sexual immorality is no longer the tip of the spear for the progressive push. Adultery is still frowned upon by many. Accusations of greed will still smear a candidate’s political campaign. Thievery is still not openly embraced, and there are no official initiatives saying it’s okay to go steal things that don’t belong to you. There’s no such thing as a drunk agenda yet. Most aren’t proud to choose a beverage over stability, and there aren’t any petitions that the government should abolish the driving restrictions of inebriated individuals. Reviling others still isn’t seen as the best way to win friends and influence people. Swindling, especially on a corporate level, usually gets someone thrown into jail. In fact, the infrastructure of the American economy depends upon, in some measure, our shared disdain for conniving scammers.
Perhaps excepting fornication, these sins are still seen in a pretty negative light. But not homosexual practice, not by those who are now speaking loudest and holding positions of prominence. According to the emerging consensus, homosexuality is different.
What to Be Against
As Christians, we believe with deepest sincerity that the embrace of homosexual practice, along with other sins, keeps people out of the kingdom of God. And if our society celebrates it, we can’t both be caring and not say anything. Too much is at stake. This means it is an oversimplification to say that Christians — or conservative evangelicals — are simply against homosexuality. We are against any sin that restrains people from everlasting joy in God, and homosexual practice just gets all the press because, at this cultural moment, it’s the main sin that is so freshly endorsed in our context by the powers that be. Let’s hope that if there’s some new cultural agenda promoting thievery — one that says it’s now our right to take whatever we want from others by whatever means — that Christians will speak out against it. The issue is sin. That’s what we’re against. And that’s what should make our voice so unique when we speak into this debate.
Some would like to see this whole issue of homosexuality divided into two camps: those who celebrate it and those who hate it. Both of these groups exist in our society. There are the growing numbers, under great societal pressure, who praise homosexuality. We might call them the left. And there are people who hate homosexuality, with the most bigoted rationale and apart from any Christian concern. We might call them the right.
Those Glorious Words
The current debate is plagued by this binary lens. Those on the left try to lump everyone who disagrees with them into that right side. If you don’t support, you hate. Meanwhile, those on the right see compromise and spinelessness in anyone who doesn’t get red-faced and militant. If you don’t hate, you support.
But true followers of Christ will walk neither path. We have something to say that no one else is saying, or can say.
Distancing ourselves from both the left and the right, we don’t celebrate homosexual practice, we acknowledge God’s clear revealed word that it is sin; and we don’t hate those who embrace homosexuality, we love them enough to not just collapse under the societal pressure. We speak the truth in love into this confusion, saying, simultaneously, “That’s wrong” and “I love you.” We’re not the left; we say, this is wrong. And we’re not the right; we say, you’re loved. We speak good news, with those sweetest, deepest, most glorious words of the cross — the same words that God spoke us — “You’re wrong, and you’re loved.”
God tells us we’re wrong, that the wages of sin is death, that unrepentant rebellion means judgment, that our rescue required the cursed death of his Son (Romans 3:23; John 3:36; Galatians 3:13). And God tells us we’re loved, that even while we were sinners, Jesus died for us, that while we were unrighteous, Jesus suffered in our place, that though we were destined for wrath, Jesus welcomes us into glory (Romans 5:8; 1 Peter 3:18; Ephesians 2:1–7).
Where the Gospel Shines
You’re wrong and you’re loved — that’s the unique voice of the Christian. That’s what we say, speaking from our own experience, as Tim Keller so well puts it, “we’re far worse than we ever imagined, and far more loved than we could ever dream.”
That’s our message in this debate, when society’s elites despise us, when pop songs vilify us, when no one else has the resources to say anything outside of two extremes, we have this incomparable opportunity to let the gospel shine, to reach out in grace: you’re wrong and you’re loved. We get to say this.
That’s why homosexuality is not like other sins.
Spread the word! Uninstall Firefox. Go with Chrome, Safari, Internet Explorer, Opera or anything but Mozilla Firefox. Boycott Firefox.
Do this, but not solely for the reasons that you might think that I am saying this. Delete Firefox to preserve liberty and to preserve tolerance. I am talking about the true sense of the true meaning of the word “tolerance.” The loony left have hijacked and changed the meaning of that word, just as Orwellian leftists have done to other words in the past. It’s what they do. It’s why I call them Orwellian. Actually, before I go on, I think Dennis Prager said everything else I wanted to say best, and with superior clarity on this subject in this article that he wrote last Tuesday.
In 31 years of broadcasting, and 40 years of writing, I have never advocated a boycott of a product.
Quite the opposite, in fact.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, when the left attempted to destroy Chick-Fil-A for its owner’s views on same-sex marriage, I suggested on my radio show that the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, stand in front of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant while enjoying some Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. In that way, I argued, he could show one of the great moral differences between the right and the left. Though Ben and Jerry are leftists, we conservatives do not believe that company owners’ views should matter to consumers. We believe that products should speak for themselves. If the ice cream is good, despite whatever repugnance we might feel regarding the views of the makers of that ice cream, we will still purchase it.
The left does not see things that way. The left is out to crush individuals and companies with whom it differs. This is especially so today on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of this took place last week. The governing board of the widely used browser, Firefox, forced the company’s CEO, Brendan Eich, to resign. The Firefox board had learned that in 2008, Eich donated $1,000 to the Proposition 8 campaign in California. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In classic Communist fashion, gay rights organizations demanded that Eich publicly recant. When Eich did not, gay rights and other leftist organizations called for a boycott of Firefox. Firefox immediately forced Eich out.
All these years, the left, after coining the term “McCarthyism” in order to disparage the right, had fooled most people into believing that it is the right that suppresses liberty. The truth, of course, has been the opposite. Worldwide, with the exception of Nazi Germany (which was a uniquely race-based totalitarianism, neither left nor right — while it rejected Marxist class-based struggle, it supported socialism (“Nazism” was short for National Socialism), every genocidal totalitarian regime of the 20th century was leftist. And domestically, too, the left has much less interest in liberty than in forcing people to act in accord with its values. A totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA. How you think matters and what you do away outside of work matters: More than 20 states prohibit judges from being leaders in the Boy Scouts — because the left deems the Boy Scouts homophobic.
During the McCarthy era, the left (and not only the left) screamed when people were falsely charged with supporting Stalin and Communism, one of the greatest evils in human history. But the left also screamed when people who really did aid and abet Stalin were dismissed from their jobs. In other words, for those on the left who celebrate Eich’s ouster, it was evil to deprive a man who supported Stalin of a job, but it is right to fire a man who supports the man-woman definition of marriage. Such is the left’s moral compass.
It is important to further note that gay employees at Firefox acknowledge that Eich never discriminated against gays, whether in employment, benefits or any other way. But that doesn’t matter to the left because a totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA.
As Princeton Professor of Jurisprudence Robert George warned on my radio show, today the left fires employees for opposition to same-sex marriage. Tomorrow it will fire employees who are pro-life (“anti-woman”). And next it will be employees who support Israel (an “apartheid state”).
The reason to boycott Firefox is not that it is run by leftists. Nor is the reason to support the man-woman definition of marriage. It is solely in order to preserve liberty in the land of liberty. If Firefox doesn’t recant and rehire Eich as CEO, McCarthyism will have returned far more pervasively and perniciously than in its first incarnation. The message the gay left (such as the Orwellian-named Human Rights Campaign) and the left in general wish to send is that Americans who are in positions of power at any company should be forced to resign if they hold a position that the left strongly opposes…
Margaret Thatcher Passed away today.
I will miss her. She reached 87 years old. Soviets called her the “Iron Lady”. Here, above she is pictured with Ronald Reagan, These are two of my greatest heroes in Conservative politics. No one stood up to the left as well as these two did. I hope we can find leaders who will do this again.
Margaret Thatcher Quotes:
[One of my favorites:] “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” ― Margaret Thatcher