Author: Ron Graham
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it,” [B](Matthew 7:13-14)
In the days when Jesus walked the shores of Galilee it was notable that the roads leading into the larger cities were broad allowing a huge throng of travelers to enter together. There were also narrow pathways with even narrower gates for entering such cities unobserved, and according to Jesus’ statement few enter in through that narrow gate. What Jesus is alluding to here is that many people will choose to travel the wide path, that’s those that are of the world. People who are unconcerned with God or their eternal salvation are who Jesus is talking about. They are only concerned with the daily grind of getting ahead, what they can glean out of this life, “what’s in it for me” type of attitude. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God,” 1 Corinthians 1:18. They are blinded from the truth of the Gospel of Christ. They see no benefit in following Jesus’ teachings. They pay no attention to the idea of dying someday. They only wish to pursue pleasures that keep them content for the day. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness,” 1 Corinthians 3:19.
[Related Article: Praying for the Sedgefield Community]
The highway which leads to death is broad and multitudes travel that path. It is a great highway in which most people will never come to realize its destructive powers. They fall into following that destructive path easily and they are persuaded of its allure by others who have already made it their life’s path. Leaving that path takes a special kind of thinking. Those who are perishing for the most part have no concept what awaits them at the end of that wide path.
[Related Article: Praying for Richmond, VA]
Christ has laid out for us in advance how we are to enter into Heaven, we must enter through Him, and He tells us it won’t be easy to follow His path, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution,” 2 Timothy 3:12. Following Jesus won’t be a cake walk. We must understand that entering in through the narrow gate and following Jesus Christ will lead to persecution and hatred from those who are still on the wide highway, many of which may well be family members of whom we love.
Everyday we are fed lies that are designed to keep us off the straight path and away from the narrow gate; this is in direct opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Through movies and television, the leftist news media, the internet, and our humanistic public schools, we are taught there is no such thing as God. In the view of secular scientists there is no other path to take other than the wide path. In their way of thinking the straight path and the narrow gate aren’t even an alternative. “There just isn’t any truth in the Bible” they say. “It’s antiquated and not reliable, stay away from it.” As you can see, people are programmed from an early age to travel the path that leads to destruction.
[Related Article: Hell Bound]
With Jesus’ words taken from Matthew 7, it is clear that for a huge multitude of people what awaits them is everlasting torment once they leave this world. Why? Because they couldn’t reconcile themselves to the truth and make a lane change. For a select few in comparison, there will be everlasting life in Heaven with our LORD and Savior Jesus Christ. This is so, because we followers of Jesus Christ persevered in the face of adversity. We are admonished to hold fast to the faith. “Let us hold fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering; (for he [is] faithful that promised),” Hebrews 10:23.
There is a joy that goes along with our salvation which is frankly difficult to explain to non believers. But aside from that joy, we have God’s assurance that for those of us who have elected to travel the straight path and enter in through the narrow gate, Heaven awaits.
Hell, on the other hand doesn’t conjure up any joy whatsoever. Some foolish people make the comment, “Oh well, I’ll be with friends.” Nowhere in the scriptures are we told that Hell will be an everlasting keg party in the park. No, Jesus tells us in the Gospel of Matthew what Hell is, “The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity… And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:41, 42. Jesus uses this phrase (wailing and gnashing of teeth) six times in the Gospel of Matthew. Therefore it must be quite significant. Hell is described as a lake of fire created for Satan and his angels. Hell was not created for man nor will God send anyone there. Those whose final destination is Hell will only have themselves to blame, not God. Adam and Eve’s rebellion led to Gods creation being cursed, and because man sinned, God dealt with it. God gives everyone on the face of this planet ample advance notice of the two destinations of which one or the other awaits us all.
In Heaven we will be surrounded by indescribable beauty and a magnificence that is beyond our wildest dreams. There will be no sorrow or pain, and shortly after our arrival, no more tears, we’ll have no complaints, only pure joy and splendor with the one and only true God of the universe.
Hell on the other hand is the ultimate in everlasting suffering. It is a place where no one in their right mind would ever choose to go. Yet it’s a place where everyone, through their own resolve, will end up for eternity if there is no repentance and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. For those who don’t get the concept of an eternity in Hell let me explain. Going to Hell isn’t just a life sentence such as going to prison; it’s an eternal sentence with no possibility of a reprieve from the Governor, or in this case Jesus Christ our LORD. Since we’re told its everlasting that’s what I believe. Some will try to say that everlasting only means for a while. Jesus Himself uses the word everlasting four times in the Gospel of Matthew. The Greek word is ainios, when translated into English we get the following meanings: for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity. Therefore there’s no reason to assume that those who find themselves in Hell for eternity, all because of their foolish pride, arrogance, lack of faith will ever be released from that horrible torment.
[Related Article: Is Punishment Eternal?]
Narrow path or wide highway, it’s a choice we must make and there is no middle ground. It’s kind of like the television game show the Price Is Right only there’s just two doors to choose from, door number 1 and door number 2. But unlike the game show, what’s behind each door is in plain view for everyone to see, and everyone on the face of this planet will play.
“Jesus saith unto him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me,” John 14:6. If we choose to travel that wide path, that worldly path, that path that will lead us to destruction, we have no excuse because it was our choice. Just like the game show above, we made our choice freely. Wouldn’t it be better to choose the strait path and enter in through the narrow gate that is Christ Jesus our Lord in whom we receive eternal life?
When we die our choices are over. The very instant we die we will either be with our Lord Jesus in Heaven or in Hell for all of eternity. Don’t let anyone fool you into believing that our paths are pre-determined; we must decide for ourselves which course we are going to take, and nothing is more important than our eternal salvation. Remember this no one knows what tomorrow will bring. As fragile as these bodies of ours are, today could be the very day we enter into eternity.
[Related Article: A Fly For Oscar]
“He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God,” John 3:18.
Hillary decision likely doomed U.S. ambassador
Newly presented evidence refutes her account
Source: WorldNetDaily.com – 09.09.2014
A security decision finalized personally by Hillary Clinton may have unwittingly doomed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi attack, charges a new book.
The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know, by New York Times bestselling author Aaron Klein, documents Clinton herself signed waivers that allowed the facility to be legally occupied, since it did not meet the minimum official security standards set by the State Department.
One waiver in particular may have been crucial regarding the ultimate fate of Stevens, Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty, all of whom were killed during the initial assault on the U.S. special mission.
This view has been given even more credence in light of new testimony by Benghazi survivors.
Klein shows that while some required waivers technically could have been issued by lower-level State Department officials, several other waivers could only have been approved by Clinton herself, including what is known as the “co-location” requirement.
The “co-location” requirement refers to the unusual housing setup in Benghazi in which intelligence and State Department personnel were kept in two separate locations.
The waiver legally allowed the CIA annex to be housed in a location about one mile from the U.S. special mission.
According to new accounts from Benghazi survivors, the delayed response time by those at the CIA annex may have cost the lives of Stevens and the three other Americans killed at the special mission.
If the CIA annex had been co-located with the U.S. special mission a rapid response team would have been on site during the initial assault in which Stevens was killed. Clinton’s waiver allowed the CIA annex to be housed at the separate location.
Last week, the Fox News’ Channel’s Bret Baier interviewed three security operators who were at the separately located CIA annex. The three essentially served as first responders to any attack on the mission.
The security contractors – Kris Paronto, Mark Geist and John Tiegen – told Fox News they wanted to depart for the mission but were delayed by the commanding CIA officer in Benghazi, whom they refer to as ‘Bob’.
The three said that after a delay of about 30 minutes, the security team departed without orders and asked their superiors to request air support, assistance which never arrived.
The security team further told Fox News the delay may have cost Stevens his life.
“Ambassador Stevens and Sean [Smith], yeah, they would still be alive, my gut is yes,” Paronto said, with team member Tiegen agreeing.
“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today,” he continued.
The Fox News report was based on the book 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened in Benghazi by Mitchell Zuckoff with the annex security team.
Hillary ‘caught misleading public’
In The REAL Benghazi Story, meanwhile, further charges Clinton misled the public about her role in helping to secure the U.S. special mission in Benghazi and may have even deceived lawmakers during her public testimony probing the attacks.
The book breaks new ground on events leading to the attacks and cites information that contradicts the Obama administration’s version of what took place that ill-fated night.
One major topic addressed in the book is Clinton’s personal part in the scandal.
To start with, Klein’s new book challenges Clinton’s own narrative as set forth in her recent memoir, Hard Choices, where the former secretary of state claims she was not personally involved in security decisions at the U.S. special mission in Benghazi.
Clinton wrote she did not see cables requesting additional security. She claimed any cables related to the security at the compound were only addressed to her as a “procedural quirk” and didn’t actually land on her desk.
Klein shows she personally signed those waivers that allowed the facility to be legally occupied.
Asks Klein: “[By signing the waivers,] did Clinton know she was approving a woefully unprotected compound? If not then at the very least she is guilty of dereliction of duty and the diplomatic equivalent of criminal negligence.”
Further, Clinton’s top deputies, including officials known to be close to her, were responsible for some major denials of security at the compound.
In one example, it was Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy who canceled the use in Tripoli of a DC-3 aircraft that could have aided in the evacuation of the Benghazi victims.
Kennedy also denied permission to build guard towers at the Benghazi mission and approved the withdrawal of a security support team, or SST, that special U.S. forces specifically maintained for counter-attacks on U.S. embassies or threats against diplomatic personnel.
Klein contends it defies logic that Clinton was not informed of the general nature of security at the Benghazi facility, especially since she was known to have taken a particular interest in the compound. She reportedly called for the compound to be converted into a permanent mission before a scheduled trip to Libya in December 2012 that eventually was canceled.
More problems with ‘Hard Choices’
Klein dedicates an entire section to pointing out what the author says are misleading statements in the Benghazi chapter of Clinton’s “Hard Choices.”
Clinton suggests that Stevens traveled to Benghazi before the attacks and implies he had meetings at the U.S. special mission the night of the attack on his own initiative.
Clinton writes: “U.S. ambassadors are not required to consult or seek approval from Washington when traveling within their countries, and rarely do. Like all chiefs of mission, Chris made decisions about his movements based on the security assessments of his team on the ground, as well as his own judgment. After all, no one had more knowledge or experience in Libya than he did.”
She writes that Stevens “understood Benghazi’s strategic importance in Libya and decided that the value of a visit outweighed the risks.” She does not provide the actual reason for Stevens’ visit to the Benghazi compound.
Klein relates Clinton failed to mention Stevens may have gone to Benghazi for a project that she specifically requested.
chargé d’affaires in Libya, center, testifies before a congressional hearing.
According to congressional testimony by Gregory Hicks, the former State Department deputy chief of mission and chargé d’affaires who was in Libya at the time of the attack, Stevens went to the compound that day in part because Clinton wanted to convert the shanty complex into a permanent mission in a symbol of the new Libya.
Hicks said Clinton wanted to announce the establishment of a permanent U.S. State Department facility during her planned visit there in December 2012. Apparently Stevens was up against a very specific funding deadline to complete an extensive survey of the mission so the compound could be converted.
Toward the end of the hearing, the chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked Hicks to summarize his testimony on why Stevens went to Benghazi.
“At least one of the reasons Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi was to further the secretary’s wish that that post become a permanent constituent post and that he was also there because we understood the secretary intended to visit Tripoli later in the year,” Hicks reiterated. “We hoped that she would be able to announce to the Libyan people the establishment of a permanent constituent post in Benghazi at that time.”
Whitewashes her own Benghazi statement
At about 10 p.m. Eastern on Sept. 11, 2012, Clinton was one of the first Obama administration officials to make a public statement about the Benghazi attacks.
In her book, Clinton writes: “As the cameras snapped away, I laid out the facts as we knew them – ‘heavily armed militants’ had assaulted our compound and killed our people – and assured Americans that we were doing everything possible to keep safe our personnel and citizens around the world. I also offered prayers for the families of the victims and praise for the diplomats who serve our country and our values all over the world.”
Clinton fails to mention that in her initial statement she also first linked the Benghazi attacks to an infamous anti-Islam film.
Her brief official statement included this: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
Location of Special Forces
Clinton wrongly writes that the closest U.S. Special Forces that could have responded to the attacks were “standing by in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, but they would take several hours to muster and were more than five thousand miles away.”
She continued: “Critics have questioned why the world’s greatest military force could not get to Benghazi in time to defend our people. Part of the answer is that, despite having established United States Africa Command in 2008, there just wasn’t much U.S. military infrastructure in place in Africa.”
Klein notes it has been confirmed Special Forces known as C-110, or the EUCOM CIF, were on a training mission in Croatia the night of the attack. The distance between Croatia’s capital, Zagreb, and Benghazi is about 925 miles. The C-110 is a rapid-response team that exists for emergencies like terrorist attacks against U.S. embassies abroad.
Instead of being deployed to Libya, the C-110 was told the night of the attack to return to its normal operating base in Germany.
Clinton defended the actions of then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who on Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, infamously appeared on five morning television programs to offer the official Obama administration response to the Benghazi attack. In nearly identical statements, Rice asserted that the attack was a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”
Writes Clinton: “Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time. That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.”
Clinton’s claim that the intelligence community believed the attacks were a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video” is called into question by numerous revelations.
Hicks testified he knew immediately it was a terrorist attack, not a protest turned violent. According to Hicks, “everybody in the mission” believed it was an act of terror “from the get-go.”
The CIA’s station chief in Libya reportedly emailed his superiors on the day of the attack that it was “not an escalation of anti-American protest.”
Writes Klein: “The claim of a popular protest also defies logic. Spontaneous protesters do not show up with weapons, erect armed checkpoints surrounding the compound and demonstrate insider knowledge of the facility while deploying military-style tactics to storm the U.S. mission.”
“Nor do spontaneous protesters know the exact location of a secretive CIA annex, including the specific coordinates of the building that were likely utilized to launch precision mortar strikes. Spontaneous protesters are not thought to be capable of mounting a fierce, hours-long gun battle with U.S. forces stationed inside the annex.”
Blames talking points on the CIA
Clinton placed the blame for the controversial talking points squarely with the CIA without mentioning the State Department contributed to the manufacturing of the points.
“The extensive public record now makes clear that Susan (Rice) was using information that originated with and was approved by the CIA,” she writes. “That assessment didn’t come from political operatives in the White House; it came from career professionals in the intelligence community.”
But it has been confirmed that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland played an active role in crafting the talking points as did Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan.
Klein goes on to document numerous other problems with the Benghazi chapter of “Hard Choices,” such as promoting the questionable Obama administration narrative of a lull in fighting.
The issues in “Hard Choices” are just the start of possible problems for Clinton regarding the Benghazi attack.
Weapons to rebels
Klein explains the compound itself was deliberately set up with minimal security so as not to attract attention to what the author reports were secretive activities taking place inside the mission, activities for which Clinton herself was a central player, relates “The REAL Benghazi Story” book.
Klein utilizes public sources in a systematic connect-the-dots exercise indicating both the U.S. mission and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi were involved in coordinating U.S. aid transfers to rebels in the Middle East, with particular emphasis on shipping weapons to jihadists fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
Klein cites evidence Stevens himself played a central role in coordinating arms shipments to the gunmen fighting Assad’s regime, even helping an arms dealer named Marc Turi secure approval from the State Department to sell at least $200 million in weapons that were shipped via Qatar. Qatar was known to have helped to arm the rebels.
“The REAL Benghazi Story” cites public reports showing Clinton, together with then CIA Director David H. Petraeus, were the architects of a plan to arms the Libyan and Syrian rebels. The Clinton plan called for rebel groups to be vetted, trained and armed utilizing countries like Turkey and Qatar.
Even the New York Times, in February 2013, described Clinton as one of the driving forces behind advocating a plan to arm the Syrian rebels. The newspaper quoted White House officials claiming they rejected the plan.
“It is difficult to believe the White House rejected a plan proposed and supported by the Secretaries of State and Defense plus the CIA chief to boot,” writes Klein.
Indeed, the particulars of Clinton’s plan for rebel groups to be vetted, trained and armed seems to have been implemented. The Times itself confirmed American-aided arms were shipped to the rebels since at least November 2012.
The Times description of the arms shipments mirrors the exact plan as reportedly concocted by Clinton.
The Times reported that since at least November 2012, the U.S. had been helping “the Arab governments shop for weapons, including a large procurement from Croatia, and have vetted rebel commanders and groups to determine who should receive the weapons as they arrive.”
Lied in testimony?
Clinton’s plan to arm the rebels was seemingly put into action, Klein notes.
If this is the case, and “the evidence points there,” writes Klein, then Clinton has even more explaining to do because she claimed during her Benghazi testimony that she did not know whether the U.S. mission in Libya was procuring or transferring weapons to Turkey and other Arab countries.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. asked Clinton a direct question: “Is the U. S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?”
“To Turkey?” Clinton asked, as her voice suddenly jumped an octave. “I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody has ever raised that with me.”
Continued Paul: “It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that may have weapons, and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons, and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Clinton replied: “Well, senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will see what information is available.”
“You’re saying you don’t know?” asked Paul.
“I do not know,” Clinton said. “I don’t have any information on that.”
That is not the only instance of possibly inaccurate testimony cited by Klein in “The REAL Benghazi Story.”
She may have erred when she said no one within the government ever recommended the closure of the U.S. facilities in the Libyan city.
In her testimony, Clinton stated: “Well, senator, I want to make clear that no one in the State Department, the intelligence community, any other agency, ever recommended that we close Benghazi. We were clear-eyed about the threats and the dangers as they were developing in eastern Libya and in Benghazi.” Clinton was responding to a question from Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.
Clinton’s testimony is contradicted by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya. Wood testified that he personally recommended the Benghazi mission be closed, as documented in the 46-page House Republican report probing the Benghazi attack. Page six of the report cites security concerns, including over 200 attacks in Libya, 50 of which took place in Benghazi, including against the U.S. mission there.
States the Republican report: “These developments caused Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who led the U.S. military’s efforts to supplement diplomatic security in Libya, to recommend that the State Department consider pulling out of Benghazi altogether.”
Continued the report: “Lt. Col. Wood explained that after the withdrawal of these other organizations, ‘it was apparent to me that we were the last [Western] flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi.’”
Book breaks “REAL” Benghazi story
Besides the Clinton material, the extensively sourced book breaks news on significant issues related to the Benghazi attack.
A sampling of what the publisher says is contained in the book:
- Everything is covered from the secretive activities transpiring inside the doomed facility to shocking new details about the withholding of critical protection at the U.S. special mission.
- Information that raises new questions about what really happened to Ambassador Chris Stevens that night.
- Answered for the first time is why the State Department hired armed members of the al-Qaida-linked February 17 Martyrs Brigade to “protect” the facility.
- New reasons are revealed for not sending air support or Special Forces during the assault, while extensively probing jihadist groups behind the attack.
- How Benghazi has implications that go beyond the Sept. 11, 2012, attack and may have created major national security threats we now face, fueling conflicts from Mali to Syria to Gaza and beyond.
Author: Derrick Wilburn
Source: American Thinker – 1.10.2014
That Hollywood is no longer a source of entertainment but now a source of (liberal) propaganda isn’t exactly news. Even avowed leftists will admit that film and television are solidly the domain of progressive liberalism and that progressive messaging is embedded in just about everything Hollywood produces. From children’s programming to the gratuitous “awards shows” that basically feature writers, actors, and producers giving awards to one another, it’s either bold and in-your-face or latent and just beneath the surface — but its there. The overt liberalism that is the entertainment industry is indisputable.
The entire state of California is radically blue (from a legislative point of view), and the segment of it known as “Tinseltown” is basically a caricature of itself. These people have a very high pulpit from which to preach and they habitually use is to its full advantage.
The entertainment industry is full of famous and infamous individuals who wholly support and verbally tout the most extreme of liberal policies and causes. More remarkable than their slavish devotion to all things progressive is how these people either cannot see or chose to ignore the massive flames of hypocrisy raging all around them. For instance, global warming and the need for a “green” planet.
These mouthy Hollywood stars are millionaires many times over and as is the case with most human beings, their homes, automobiles and lifestyles tend to reflect their income and personal net worth. Turn on E!, MTV’s “Cribs”, pick up a magazine or tabloid sometime and take a look. They virtually all drive huge luxury SUV’s or exotic sports cars that get nine miles-per-gallon (downhill, with a tail wind), live in 20,000 square foot, 12-bedroom mansions with theaters, bowling alleys, indoor pools, multiple kitchens, etc., which require heating, air conditioning, lawn maintenance, and generally suck up massive amounts of power — mostly from coal-fired power plants (which the politicians they’re supporting are trying to eliminate.) They travel on privately-chartered jets and get around city streets in limousines large enough for 10 occupants but carrying just one.
Moreover, many of these entertainers are motion-picture action stars. Could anything be more environmentally unfriendly than the production of today’s action flicks? All are rife with car chases and massive explosions. The size and scale of stuff blowing up gets bigger and bigger. In each of these movies huge plumes of thick black smoke goes billowing into the sky to supposedly eat away at our ozone layer. But apparently that’s okay if there’s a paycheck in it for the actor. But you and I? These same people want you and me to upgrade to a 90% efficient furnace, drive a car the size of a shoebox, and heat our homes to no more than 68 degrees to help save the planet.
Virtually all of the Hollywood elitists march in lockstep with the Democrat Party and its freakishly cultish devotion to abortion and gun-control legislation. They scream bloody murder when a deranged person walks into a building and shoots the place up, but look the other way when it comes to the million a year who are liquefied and sucked out of their own mother’s wombs. “We’ve got to get rid of the guns to save lives”, but we’ve got to keep “choice” so we can keep on destroying lives. Talk about having it both ways. They will volunteer time to support a cause trying to save the eggs of the Dusky Seaside Sparrow but would not lift one finger to save a human being in the same state of existence.
These same people produce the most ultra-violent movies imaginable, filled with more gun violence in an hour than the United States sees in a year. You’d think them the most pro-gun, pro-2nd amendment, NRA-friendly people on the planet. In these movies (and games) they’re grabbing guns and shooting people to death at a breakneck pace. Yet, they come out in favor of more restrictions on gun ownership and take zero responsibility for so much as the possibility that the products they produce and feed our society may at least in some way be contributing to the ill people who go out and do in real life what they see these Hollywood stars do on the screen.
Jamie Foxx achieved an amazing feat in back-to-back months in 2012. So wholly bought into the president’s vision and agenda that in November of that year he used his speaker’s platform at the annual Soul Train Awards show to publicly announce Barack Obama “our lord and savior.” The very next month, in what could be one of the sickest gifts ever given the American public, Django Unchained was released on December 25th. Perfect for getting families into the holiday spirit, the Quentin Tarantino movie features an over-the-top amount of violence and deaths by gunshot even by mega-death movie director Tarantino’s lofty standards. Fox plays the title role of Django, who engages in a grisly, blood-soaked gore fest resulting in 64 people being killed in its 165-minute run time. Not only did this bloody, shoot ‘em all violence-fest rack up such an appalling body count, Hollywood then saw fit to bestow upon it not one but two Academy Awards.
Then there’s Sean Penn. An actor to the ideological left of President Obama (if that’s possible) who’s known for chumming up to such global do-gooders as deceased Venezualan dictator Hugo Chavez. Penn is another one who walks in lockstep with all aspects of the left’s agenda, including sweeping gun-control measures. However, those bold ideals didn’t seem to stop him from making and raking in millions from the massive kill count of his 2013 film, Gangster Squad. In all, 55 people get shot and killed from the front, shot from behind, shot in cars, shot on the street, shot in theaters, shot pretty much any and every way a person can get shot. All with grisly, blood, guts, and brain-spattering effects. Originally scheduled for a September 2012 release, the date was moved back in the wake of the deadly theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Apparently showing a movie in a theater depicting everyone being shot was deemed inappropriate so close to the date when so many went to a theater to see a movie and were shot. But somehow showing it a little later mitigated any inappropriateness. Upon its release for months later, one critic noted, “…the opening scenes play chicken with the audience as they lead up to uncomfortably gory conclusions.”
No discussion of Hollywood’s wildly liberal outspoken Obama and gun control supporters would be complete without mention of Matt Damon. Mr. Damon is well known as a Hollywood leftie who’s movies frequently venture into the (not so) veiled realm of delivering political messages. He is one who, like Senator Diane Feinstein of California would legislate “Mr. & Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in” (guns) in a heartbeat if he could. Damon has made tens of millions portraying Jason Bourne. In his Bourne trilogy of movies he’s seen shooting myriads of people but the gunplay and violence of his latest film, 2013’s wholly anti-capitalist Elysium was summed up by one writer thusly, “True, Elysium’s body count does not rival the average slasher film, but few of those films celebrate wanton mortality as deliberately as Elysium.” Translation? “While only a few dozen people get shot and killed, the deaths are really, really great.”
The Hollywood mega-millionaire population is rife with double-speak, preaching to us by day and going home to their Malibu mansions by night and seemingly not realizing their own hypocrisy (or not caring). Popular conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham wrote a book not so long ago titled Shut Up & Sing essentially saying, “You’re paid to sing or act, quit with all the political discourse already.” Here’s a better idea: Just shut up.
Author: J.R. Nash
Source: American Thinker – July 4, 2013
Imagine, for more than half a century, American preachers were being told what not to say from their pulpits by an all-powerful IRS. And too many disinterested souls forgot that in politics, continuing to ignore what happens to others may put a noose around your own neck. Now we find that some of our government agencies are monsters under the bed with revelations coming out every day that should wake up the sleeping masses.
People in America, especially the younger crowd, must begin to think hard about what is happening in our government and how it affects them as individuals else they may see the good side gone forever. All conservative thinkers must re-examine their approach to prospective voters.
First, conservatives have to take off the gloves and become more aggressive. And it’s time for conservative intellectuals to stop ignoring the religious heritage of our nation. It is that heritage, after all, that gave us a great nation with a determination to do the right thing, no matter the circumstances, and all conservative thinkers need to recognize and respect that part of our history. It is our religious and moral heritage which gives the most credence to our arguments.
We have the best product to sell that the world has ever seen and we can confidently use that fact to counter the leftists’ love for ridiculing those who disagree with them. No one should refrain from asking them repeatedly, “Why are you so afraid to discuss the issues openly without personal insults?” And no one should be reluctant to ask an immigrant, “Do you really want a society that is like the one you fled?” We are in a fight for the nation’s survival now and fortunately, both the facts and good reasoning are on our side.
Second, we must find new ways to make all potential voters aware that the ever increasing centralization of power in Washington contributes more than anything else to a kind of enslavement for individuals. No doubt, America’s age old concern about slavery seems to have become a thing of the past. We must change that. One way is to seize the simplicity of statements that will get the attention of those who have ears to hear. There are none more timely than this:
Big Brother is a slaver. There is nothing American about him.
Certainly, we should never be so staid in our thinking that we cannot learn from the left, at least in the art of communications. We too can use key words and slogans that will convey the conservative message as precisely and as directly as possible. For instance, when the subject of socialism comes up, only about a dozen liberals know that the word NAZI is an abbreviation for National Socialist Party. So tell them. Tell them all.
Third, and most important for the long term, the young people should hear plainly that there are few moral concepts on the left that would prohibit lying for the cause. The best example is the deliberate misrepresentation of American History. On this subject leftist lies are endless.
For instance, we have heard the pronouncements that America is not a Judeo/Christian nation and that its governing authorities must honor godlessness. Yet, if that is so, why does our three-hundred-years-old culture present overwhelming evidence otherwise? And why do leftist organizations hide behind doublespeak and spend most of their funds and employ most of their effort to erase our religious heritage from the nation’s history?
Simply said, strong evidence of the existence of a fact can often be established merely by the extent and the aura that surround its denials. Consider a few of the most obvious examples: “Creator” and “Nature’s God” recognized in the Declaration of Independence, statements by the founders such as John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, the use of Bibles for swearing in of presidents, the use of Bibles for swearing witnesses in our courts, Bibles in our public schools, the Ten Commandments in our public schools and our courthouses, prayers in Congress, FDR’s prayer on D-Day, Christian prayers in our public schools, chaplains in the military, Easter vacation, Christmas vacation, In God We Trust on our currency, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, God Bless America, and veterans’ crosses at Arlington, Normandy, everywhere.
The left’s rejections of these proofs are so specious and sometimes so meanspirited that you wonder what really drives them. Obviously, their enormous use of duplicity and doublespeak goes hand in hand with the leftist stance on morality. Moreover, to ignore the tragic history of the nations that have evolved into societal godlessness is to lie to one’s self. Liberals do that a lot.
Most certainly, it is a time to force some straight talk about citizenship for illegal immigrants. First of all, American generosity to other people is well established; that should not be a part of the issue. Here, liberals lie on two points. One, they make their effort appear to be for purely humanitarian aims. Two, they consistently misrepresent their opponents as being against the poor. Yet, in the face of such blatant duplicity, only a few conservatives are willing to openly accuse the leftists of trying to build a one party system by increasing the size of their voter base. Buying votes with tax money? Why the timidity on such an extremely important point?
One of their most successful prevarications is the claim that liberals believe in diversity. In truth, they know that people who are all the same can be treated like little robots and therefore are easier for the elite to rule. North Korea comes to mind. Individualism has always been a threat to the elite so they demand that our cultural differences be melted together and that the designs of our lives must all be court approved.
Thanks be to God that in this country some of our basic legal precepts are aimed at protecting our true diversity. Though the people and their culture in Massachusetts are vastly different from the people and their culture in Texas, America’s custom of decentralizing federal power with the Tenth Amendment has often protected some fascinating differences in the land of the free.
Want to argue workable gun control in America? We can resolve most of the Second Amendment concerns just by removing the issue from the eager purview of the federal government. Here, the left should be forced to kick the habit of using every American tragedy as an excuse to center more power in Washington. Let Massachusetts outlaw guns, knives, and bombs and let Texas outlaw outlaws.
Clearly, such concepts, thoughts and arguments are not all that worrisome just now to liberals, socialists, and the so-called moderates who secretly salute the leftist cause. But the more that a person is forced to actually think about such things, the scarier it all becomes. Think about this for a moment: with the increasing talk about the computer games that are going on in Washington, how far are we now from someone playing those games with the software in our voting machines? Worst scenario: that conservatives not say a discouraging word.
There is so much at stake now. And it’s not just a job for the political figures or the professional communicators in the media. Rather, the responsibility lies with every single one of us. Lest we forget, many thousands have given their lives just so each of us could have the right and the responsibility to do our duty.
Meanwhile the nation’s clock is ticking.
Author: Daniel Greenfield
Source: the Sultan Knish blog – 08.31.2014
Ever since Hillary broke with Barack over the virtues of doing stupid stuff, the editorial columnists have been pretending that she has some new and exciting foreign policy.
The left has been denouncing her as an interventionist, the second coming of George W. Bush. They just can’t explain how Hillary is any more of an interventionist than her old boss who bombed Libya, is bombing Iraq and wanted to bomb Syria. Other places he’s bombing include Yemen and Pakistan. And all that is without taking account of his attempt to implement the Arab Spring’s regime changes across the region with tragic and disastrous results.
The closest thing to a disagreement between them was over Syria and considering that Obama was days away from getting into Syria, that’s not much of a firewall.
Hillary took a cheap shot at Obama. The media spent so much time discussing the cheap shot and their hugging summit that it completely ignored the fact that it was a cheap shot with no substance to it. Hillary and Obama have the same ideological DNA and get their ideas from the same narrow circles. Hillary doesn’t have a better or worse foreign policy. They both have the same foreign policy.
Underneath the manufactured political reality show drama that happens when a candidate of the same party as a lame duck administration tries to explain why she’s so different than the miserable failure now holding down the job is the sober reality that they’re both reading from the same scripts.
How could they not?
Hillary Clinton is trying to distance herself from the foreign policy of an administration in which she served as Secretary of State. Hillary is trying to distance herself from her own approach to international relations That’s a level of schizophrenia that is a bit extreme even for a woman who sheds accents, identities and sports team affinities the way that a snake sheds its skin.
Hillary isn’t disavowing Obama. She’s disavowing Hillary.
The newly reinvented Hillary is suddenly pro-Israel after spending years berating the Jewish State. She suddenly realized the importance of having a coherent foreign policy after having the same confused position on Iraq as John Kerry. She is suddenly full of the wisdom that was missing until last year. And she’s somehow more of an interventionist than Obama even though they were both intervening in the exact same places.
Hillary is an interventionist. But so is Obama.
The non-interventionist, like the pacifist, is a mythical woodland creature who appears in the fables of many cultures. He isn’t however to be found in the vicinity of Washington D.C.
Break down the arguments of the non-interventionist and you will find a set of conspiracy theories explaining why every previous intervention was motivated by bad faith, secret agendas and racism. The non-interventionist doesn’t reject intervention; instead he contends that every previous intervention failed because it was carried out at the behest of the banks, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the Jews, American arrogance and the oil industry.
But the non-interventionist who makes it into the White House is free to intervene as much as he likes because his motives are pure. He isn’t trying to secretly build oil pipelines or put money into Haliburton. He won’t be a unilateral cowboy launching new crusades for no good reason. And so he becomes the non-interventionist interventionist, the multilateral unilateralist, the good invader.
The fake interventionist is a lot more dangerous than the real interventionist because he thinks that he has learned all the lessons from history when all he has done is filled his head with idiotic conspiracy theories. By assigning evil underhanded motives to all his predecessors, he passes up the opportunity to actually learn from their example and instead operates under an unrealistic sense of self-confidence in his own judgement. Because he is certain that they were evil and he isn’t, he believes that he can do no wrong.
A true non-interventionist would reject intervention wholesale. Our fake non-interventionists turn up their noses at it when their political opponents do it. But once they have the power, they intervene out of entirely pure motives such as helping the Muslim Brotherhood take over entire countries.
Obama is a non-interventionist because he spends a lot of time hesitating and apologizing for each intervention. He doesn’t however bother getting permission from Congress or even UN approval.
Why should he? His motives are pure. Process is a way of slowing down men with impure motives such as George W. Bush. But pacifist saints can bomb as many countries as they want without the requirements of process getting in the way.
Hillary’s crime is that she currently sounds somewhat less apologetic and uncertain about intervention, but that’s not policy, that’s pose. Hillary’s husband boasted on the day before September 11 that he passed on killing Bin Laden because of the collateral damage. And Bill Clinton is, if anything, more of a hawk than his wife.
Anyone who thinks that Hillary is a hawk has forgotten how American personnel in Benghazi were left in a precarious security situation on her watch. It’s quite possible that Hillary might decide to bomb Syria. But don’t expect her to bomb in defense of American national interests.
She’s not that kind of interventionist.
Hillary knows that many voters are unhappy about American weakness. They don’t actually want war, but they want someone in the White House whom Putin will take seriously. And they know that isn’t Obama.
Hillary is temporarily talking tough to win them over encouraging them to forget her Reset Button pandering to the Russians and instead convince them that she’s the woman to make Vladimir respect America again. And to do that she has to sound more assertive in foreign affairs than Obama.
That doesn’t mean that Hillary Clinton can stand up to Putin any better than Obama. Or that she will. But she needs uncertain Democrats to believe that the new boss will be different than the old boss, when the new boss is really the old boss in a pantsuit and with worse posters.
Unfortunately Democrats and Republicans don’t currently differ very much on foreign policy. Where they differ is orientation. And that’s more significant than it sounds. Both Obama and McCain would have backed the Arab Spring, but McCain would have done it out of a misguided sense that it was in America’s national interest, while Obama did it to undermine American national interests.
The significance of the difference is not so much in the outcome as in attitude and in the tools that they use.
Obama and McCain would have both bombed Libya, but Obama holds the military in contempt and treats it that way. Obama and McCain would have both endorsed the Arab Spring, but Obama did it in a way that signaled American weakness. That is why Obama’s approach has weakened America even more than the actual outcome of his policies.
A country can survive bad policy. We’ve had bad foreign policy for much of the 20th century. But a leader who communicates that the bad policy is a symptom of national weakness is a disaster on a whole other scale. Both Carter and Reagan made mistakes, but Carter and Reagan sent two very different messages about American power even while they made their mistakes.
Leadership isn’t always about what you do. It’s about how you communicate your priorities and values.
Hillary Clinton is trying to package her old Obama policies with a new attitude, but underneath the attitude is the same old lefty radical who smooched Arafat’s wife, brought a Reset Button to Russia and apologized to Pakistan for a YouTube video.
We’ve already seen Hillary’s foreign policy on display in Pakistan, Russia and Benghazi. All the cheap shots at Obama won’t change the fact that Hillary’s foreign policy is another Obama rerun.