I regret this already, but…

“I regret this already, but… adds a lot to my last post. My thanks to insanitybytes22 for writing it.

As several commenters observed, the title is awesome.

See, there's this thing called biology...

I regret this already, but Kia, critic of All Things Christian, made a declaration on his blog that I feel compelled to address.

He says, “The trouble with saying that God illumines scripture for believers to “rightly divide”, is that there are so many different believers “rightly dividing” with different opinions on what God has illumined them to understand.The first indication that most Christians get that there is more to the story is when they start encountering and mixing with other Christians of different stripes and denominations.”

First off, Kia who has called me rude, disrespectful, not meek, not humble and assorted other projections, does ask a good question, or at least it would be a good question if itwere actually a question. It’s not a question at all, it’s a declaration that tries to establish there is no God because Christians are divided, there are many…

View original post 522 more words

HOW DO WE KNOW IF SHE IS GUILTY? => TARGET HILLARY CLINTON

Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015 (from here)
Clinton testifying before the House Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015 (from here)

H. Clinton’s Public Record: What Has She Accomplished?

Is the picture above an unfair picture? Not according to the source.

The hearing included many heated exchanges between committee members and Clinton, and between the committee members themselves. Clinton was widely seen as emerging largely unscathed from the hearing, because of what the media perceived as a calm and unfazed demeanor, and a lengthy, meandering, repetitive line of questioning from the committee. The committee issued competing final reports in June 2016 that broke along partisan lines, with the Republican report offering some new details about the attack but no new evidence of culpability by Clinton. (from here)

Why would the public be unfazed by the killing of four Americans and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s apparent indifference to the safety of her subordinates? Well, that is a different subject, but what the Clinton family has gotten away with is phenomenal.  Since this is only a blog, not a book, we will only touch the surface, some stuff related to Hillary Clinton’s duties as the Secretary of State.

Here is what H. Clinton’s bio says about the four years she served as Secretary of State.

After eight years of Bush foreign policy, Hillary was instrumental in the effort to restore America’s standing in the world. Even former Republican Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said she “ran the State Department in the most effective way that I’ve ever seen.”

She built a coalition for tough new sanctions against Iran that brought them to the negotiating table and she brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that ended a war and protected Israel’s security. She was a forceful champion for human rights, internet freedom, and rights and opportunities for women and girls, LGBT people, and young people all around the globe. (from here)

The quote from Kissinger goes back to a USA Today article, Kissinger: What U.S. must do to battle Islamic State, written in 2014. It is not exactly an endorsement for president; it was simply enough polite praise for someone who had praised his book.).

The other stuff? Did our position with respect to Iran actually improve? No, and the credit for setting Hamas back on its heels belongs to Israel. Shortly after Clinton last day as Secretary of State (February 1, 2013), the Israelis had  to use military force with that bunch (see 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict), and the conflict is still on-going (see IDF uncovers Gaza ‘terror tunnel’ dug into Israeli territory). The other stuff in the excerpt above is just posturing.

So what did Clinton accomplish? Let’s consider some blog posts that speak to Clinton’s accomplishments.

  • Reciprocity — reblogged is a reblog of Reciprocity by Necessary and Proper. That post deals with Clinton’s email server issues and the Democrats’ seeming indifference. Since Clinton so clearly did something she should not have done, that’s why the subject is the Democrats’ seeming indifference.  ‘s post predates the FBI’s decision against prosecuting Clinton (See Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System (www.fbi.gov)). Apparently, Comey thinks that even though Clinton’s email server was an extremely serious security infraction, no prosecutor would take her to court. Instead, we might elect her to be our president.
  • In LET THE MAKEOVER BEGIN!, I wrote briefly about Clinton’s involvement in the Benghazi coverup.  It is old news, but it is still part of Clinton’s record. Did Clinton abandon Americans to die? Did she try to blame some unknown video? It sure looks like it, and yet we might elect her to be our president.

So what is Clinton’s big issue? Well, it doesn’t seem to be a big issue for some Americans, but it sure is a big issue for her. It is the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. GuideStar (not a charity rating organization) provides more information here. What do the charity rating organizations think about that foundation?

Why are the rating organizations split? We can only guess, but the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation is an odd bird. The FBI is apparently investigating the Clinton Foundation (see EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway). This is after the DOJ declined requests from three FBI field offices to investigate the foundation (see First on CNN: Inside the debate over probing the Clinton Foundation and Justice Dept. denied FBI requests to investigate Clinton Foundation).

What’s the problem? It looks like the Clinton’s are using their foundation to launder their ill-gotten gains.

I could go on, but there is simply too much material. Even though the news media has little interest in the subject, there is still too much material, too much evidence of corruption.

Is some of the material dubious? Yes. The conspiracy theorists have their theories. The most popular relate to the suspicious deaths of numerous people related in some way to the Clinton’s. Christ Centered Teaching, who apparently thinks there is something to the theory, left theses links.

Because these stories are so speculative and no one wants to be associated with a conspiracy theory, the news media generally avoids them. So I was sort of surprised when Rush Limbaugh brought the subject up on his show (see Julian Assange Suggests Murdered DNC Staffer Could Be WikiLeaks Source).

And I have a story here today from Townhall.com, and I could swear… I could swear I saw these stories back in 1992, back in 1993, ’94.  Can I share with you the headline?  Here it is: “Clinton Body Count or Left-Wing Conspiracy? Three with Ties to DNC Mysteriously Die.”  I can remember reading magazines back in 1992 that cataloged all the people the Clintons knew who had died, and the inherent conspiracies that were associated with this.  And, lo and behold, here we go again. (from here)

Are the Clinton’s guilty of multiple murders? Who knows, but something weird is going on. Here is how Limbaugh ended that segment.

Look, the point here is it’s a Townhall story, and as I said last hour, it’s fascinating to watch these cycles repeat, because here you have now Rachel Alexander writing for Townhall asking the question a lot of people were asking back in 1992, “How many people do you know that have been murdered? How many people do you know in your life who have been killed?  How many people do you know who have died, in violence, under suspicious circumstances?”  Most every one of us the answer is gonna be zero.  Some people, depending, maybe one, maybe two.  I don’t think I know anybody.

But when you ask that question of the Clintons, the number is double digits.  It’s just an interesting observation.  No allegation being made here, ladies and gentlemen.  I’m simply doing what I do here, chronicling what else is out there being said by others and how fascinating it is that, with the Clintons, it seems to never stop.  It seems to never go away. (from here)

For all we know, some foreign intelligence service is protecting the Clinton’s. After all, who is benefiting the most from the Clinton’s screwy ideas, the people of the United States?

Why is it we cannot get rid of hated immigration policies that threaten to divide us into a nation that speaks multiple languages? Why is it we cannot get rid of trade policies that allow foreign nations to take entire industries from us?Why do we keep giving away military secrets, technologies, and materials to our enemies?  Why?

Why are our own leaders betraying us? We elect people because they buy our votes with government-run social programs. We call these programs health, education, and welfare programs. The big ones are Social Security and Medicare and they are blatantly unconstitutional, that is, the people who instituted them broke their oaths to obey the Constitution.

When we elect people who are willing to bribe us, they will sell themselves to the highest bidder, and they will do their best to hide they shady deeds. With smug smirks shared among themselves, they will be perfectly happy to let us think our own thievery from the next generation or two is innocent.

To be continued.

Other Views

National Web Sites

From Blogs

Loyalty Test: You Fail!

The argument is simple and straightforward. Read NoOneOfAnyImport post and check out her link.

Consider. If we want things to be our way — if we want to live according to our own consciences — then we must vote against candidates who openly advocate and seek to implement a Socialist agenda. What this is about is majoritarian tyranny. In addition to being foolish (Socialism doesn’t work as an economic system.), it is evil. Tyrannical systems, even supposedly democratically elected tyrannical systems, do not permit individuals the freedom to exercise their own consciences.

Whatever Trump’s faults, he isn’t advocating a Socialist agenda. The odds are in fact good that Trump will try to reverse the growth in the power of our government. However, if Trump is to succeed, we have to help him and each other.

NoOneOfAnyImport

View original post 114 more words

VIDEO: Astroturf and manipulation of media messages | Sharyl Attkisson | TEDxUniversityofNevada

Here is something very interesting. Very interesing.

When we research anything, anywhere, we must crosscheck our resources. We must develop trusted resources. We may also wish to consider some of Sharyl Attkisson’s fine advice.

How does this apply to this year’s elections. Just as drug companies that Attkisson mentioned try to spin us, so do politicians. Consider =>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/4/unfavorable-ratings-force-presidential-candidates-/. Because the stakes are so high, politics can be especially ugly. Information warfare is often the best way to describe it. Sometimes it degenerates into outright combat, like the American Civil War.

Ideally, the Internet and the mass media provide a wonderful resource to find out the Truth. Realistically, however, we are doing what we have always done. We are hearing the Truth filtered through our fellow human beings. Since we can lie or be mistaken, when it is important for us to know the truth, we have to double-check and triple our sources.

PUMABydesign001's Blog

Published on Feb 6, 2015 by TEDx Talks

In this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

Funny Sharyl Attkisson mentioned Wikipedia (actually it’s not), I had a disagreement several years back with Wikipedia after finding an error on something posted there circa the Civil Rights era.  Wikipedia considered my recount of events not credible in spite of my being at the specific location at the time.

While not all but much of the information on Wikipedia is revisionist history.

View original post