Páginas

Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Cultura Americana. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta Cultura Americana. Mostrar todas as mensagens

14 de novembro de 2020

Azul = Bom ⩒ Vermelho = Mau

 




Trocos /premium

Longe de mim qualquer convicção íntima na fraude. Desconfio só da feroz unanimidade da linguagem do Bem e não consigo escapar ao exercício contra-factual de imaginar que sucederia se fosse ao contrário

Por Paulo Tunhas no Observador ás 07:37 de 12 de Novembro de  2020. Tem comentários.

Há uns dias, estava a jantar com a minha mulher numa esplanada quando um pedinte veio ter connosco, a requerer dinheiro para uma sopa. Enquanto a minha mulher lhe dava um euro (quantia que eu reservo para o círculo restrito dos meus pedintes pessoais), expliquei-lhe (e era verdade) que só tinha moedas das pequeninas e tirei do bolso do casaco uma incómoda mão-cheia de moedinhas número 1 do Tio Patinhas, que se avizinhavam certamente, em conjunto, do euro da concorrência conjugal. Era um negócio, pensei, que convinha aos dois. Pegou nelas e afastou-se, sem agradecer, e depois parou para analisar o conteúdo da oferta, deitando para o chão da rua as de 1 e 2 cêntimos.

Eis alguém que fez a celebrada escolha da qualidade, mesmo em circunstâncias adversas. Chapeau! Ainda nos ficámos a rir com a surpresa e, depois de jantarmos, apanhámos as moedas do chão, com rigores de protestantes weberianos habitados pelo espírito do capitalismo. Maldito capitalismo, capaz de tornar uma católica e um ateu servos inconscientes de Calvino… Mas se a coisa tivesse ficado por aqui, nada de mal se teria verdadeiramente passado. O problema veio quando, sem querer, descobri que eu próprio atiro frequentemente trocos para o chão. Não exactamente trocos em cêntimos, mas trocos em ideias. Apesar de saber bem que até as mais esdrúxulas ideias contêm em si uma via, mesmo minúscula, para a verdade, há vezes em que, para evitar que os bolsos do espírito se atafulhem com uma população largamente inútil, os esvazio dos trocos que o dia-a-dia perversamente nos faz acumular. Aquilo que, na passagem do século XIX para o século XX, se chamava economia do pensamento também passa por aqui.

Dou um exemplo. Estão certamente a par do recente milagre que transformou o mundo, anunciando a magnífica vitória do Bem sobre o Mal, da luz sobre as trevas. A nossa América, a América boa, a América eterna dos nossos sonhos e das nossas promessas, venceu a falsa América, a anti-América, a América dos nossos pesadelos e das nossas frustrações. Dito de outra maneira: uma criatura da luz chamada Joe Biden derrotou nas eleições um mafarrico cujo próprio nome, Donald Trump, causa repulsa e mal-estar em qualquer um que o demo não tenha já irremediavelmente possuído com os seus fétidos miasmas. Não há boca que não cante, como cantam os anjos, a irreprimível alegria de tão gloriosa vitória do solar amanhã que nos é prometido e as palavras fluem, melodiosas: decência, bondade, união, compreensão, diversidade e todos os outros vocábulos que, ainda que aquém do êxtase propriamente dito, o anunciam como uma certeza plena e inteira.

É verdade que o mafarrico ainda estrebucha e os seus servos gostam de lembrar episódios passados que apontam no sentido de pelo menos uma modesta aceitabilidade da verosimilhança da sua doutrina sobre a possibilidade de ter existido alguma fraude eleitoral em tudo isto. Recordam, por exemplo, o facto de gente insuspeita de qualquer simpatia pelos republicanos ter há anos emitido considerações favoráveis à supressão do voto por correspondência por este poder conduzir à fraude eleitoral. Ou que, em 2016, muitos suspeitaram que a votação de Trump fora (nomeadamente no Wisconsin, no Michigan e na Pensilvânia) o resultado de manipulações do voto electrónico – isto para não falar da tese do “conluio russo”. Ou que, no passado, a mafia do Illinois havia roubado a Nixon a presidência em benefício de Kennedy. Ou que a eleição senatorial da Pensilvânia, em 1994, fora anulada por causa de fraudes maciças organizadas pela campanha do democrata William Stevenson. Aos olhos dos servos de Trump, isto deveria permitir, sem dúvida, que se apontasse que as acusações do actual presidente dos Estados Unidos são, pelo menos presentemente, insubstanciadas – mas não que se decretasse que são indesmentivelmente falsas.

A visão maniqueísta das coisas e a desconsideração da experiência passada deveria pôr-nos um bocadinho de pé atrás. Longe de mim qualquer convicção íntima na fraude. Desconfio apenas da feroz unanimidade da linguagem do Bem e não consigo escapar ao exercício contra-factual de imaginar o que diriam os democratas e os seus delegados portugueses, entre outros, se Trump tivesse vencido Biden por tão exígua margem, e à última hora, em vários swing states. Um passarinho diz-me que estariam exactamente a defender, aplaudindo, que Biden fizesse o que Trump está a fazer. Se a isto acrescentarmos a ininterrupta campanha que os democratas e a sua máquina jornalística levaram durante quatro anos a cabo contra Trump, com uma parcialidade e uma violência inauditas, a desconfiança adensa-se e o grosso do argumentário aparece muito discutível, o contrário exacto de uma evidência indesmentível.

Por mim, vou ficar muito caladinho e a pensar em coisas mais elevadas enquanto os tribunais não tiverem feito o seu trabalho. Até aí, faço como o outro e lanço os trocos – a linguagem do Bem e as certezas espúrias — para o chão. Não por especial gosto de discordar ou por ser dotado de uma natureza desconfiada, juro. Gostava imenso de experimentar a beatitude que transparece do canto dos nossos anjos, americanos ou caseiros, e de ser habitado pela irreprimível certeza que partilham. E, em vez de atirar moedas para o chão, preferia responder como uma miúda que em Paris, há muito tempo, em frente a Beaubourg, me agradeceu o cigarro que me tinha pedido: Cool! É mesmo só que não acho essa gente nada cool.

original e comentários aqui




Azul = Bom Vermelho = Mau

Os Azuis são Bons, os Vermelhos são Maus e não existem senão estas duas hipóteses de se ser: 
— Ou se é Azul, ou se é Vermelho, ou se é Bom, ou se é Mau.

Em Lógica dizemos que estamos em presença de uma Disjunção Exclusiva – ou um, ou outro, mas não ambos, nem uma terceira hipótese – em Filosofia dizemos que estamos em presença de uma Mundivisão Dualista, em Teologia que estamos em presença de uma Religião Dualista.

E é esta Mundivisão-Religião Dualista que “the powers that be” nos querem enfiar pelas goelas abaixo!

Monismo & Dualismo, publicado a 29 de Setembro de 2018.






Etiqueta principal: Fascismo Pós-moderno.

9 de janeiro de 2019

Bricolage

FUCK YA’ALL
I'LL DO IT MYSELF


FODAM-SE TODOS
VOU FAZÊ-LO SOZINHO



A forma "ya'll" é eye dialect spelling de "you'll".



Origem da figura
  • Old Boys Network.

Etiqueta principal: Curtas.
___________________________________________________________________________



11 de novembro de 2018

Sermão Dominical: Sozinho – Não Estás

Mestre Yoda.



Em inglês um um sermão dominical de Friar Stephen Freeman (Frei Estevão Homemlivre), um sacerdote da Igreja Ortodoxa na América, em português um comentário meu.



Sunday Reading 

Alone – You Are Not


Written by
Fr. Stephen Freeman, a priest of the Orthodox Church in America, serving as Rector of St. Anne Orthodox Church in Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Published at
Oriental Review on November 11, 2018


This is not a quote from Yoda. It is a simple statement concerning the nature of our existence. The fullness of existence is only found in communion, a mutual indwelling in which our lives are known and experienced not just in their self-contained form, but in their relation to others and everything around us. True existence is a connected-ness. It is also the very place where the instability and fragility of our lives is most revealed. If we can withdraw into ourselves, it is possible to imagine that we are fine, and that the things and people around us are just noise, sometimes enjoyable and other times annoying. But we do not think of the things and people around us as if our lives depended on them.

Against this withdrawal are the words of St. Silouan: “My brother is my life.”

At the very core of Christian belief is the Trinitarian God. Trinity is not just a revelation of how we speak about God. It is also the revelation of the very character of existence. The monotheism of Islam substituted God as individual for God as Trinity. As such, it might be the first modern religion. That many modern Christians struggle with Trinitarian belief and expression is evidence of how far removed modernity is from classical Christian roots. For us, “relationship” is a word that describes how we are getting along with another individual. For the Fathers, “relation” is an expression of mutual indwelling and coinherence. This exists because that exists, and they exist in one another. That is the true meaning of relationship.

When Christ says, “No one comes to the Father except by me,” modern Christians take it to mean that non-Christians go to hell. It is, in fact, a statement about the nature of Trinitarian existence. No one can come to the Father apart from Christ because there is no Father apart from Christ. The Son is “Son,” because of the “Father.” But the “Father” is not “Father,” except for the “Son” (and so on).

This is true of God but is equally true of us. The limit within human existence is that we experience our personal existence as individual existence – or the temptation to do so is always present. It assumes that who we are only refers to what is within the boundaries of our skin.

A meditation: The breath we breathe. Is it part of us or is it something else? We cannot live without it. When we take it in or breathe it out, it is “our” breath. The only human existence without breath is a lifeless corpse. God “breathed” into the dust and it became a living soul. But the “breath” is also inherently the air around us. When does the air around us become “us,” and when does it cease to be “us”?

Of course, this is just a meditation on breath and air. But the same meditation could be extended to everything else around us. It could and should be extended to every person around us. If there were no relationships whatsoever, we simply would not exist. There is nothing within us that isn’t something existing in relationship. Nothing.

We do not create relationships, nor do we have them. We are relationships and we either perceive this and pay attention or we do not. In as much as we do not, we begin moving towards non-existence – death. This is not a description of massive and universal extraversion. It is possible to be very quiet, even a hermit, and yet be profoundly aware and responsive to our existence as relationship.

The Scriptures say that “God is love.” They do not say that God simply “has” love. God “is” love, which makes love a matter of ontology. That God is love is perfectly consistent with His existence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. What we do not see clearly is that we are love, just as truly as God is love. Love is a mode of existence, indeed, the mode of existence.

“My brother is my life.” Consider the fullness of such a statement in Christ’s words, “I have come that they might have life and that more abundantly.”

Note
I will add a note of apology and explanation. I have previously written articles (The Fiction of Relationships and the Fullness of Life at Glory To God For All Things on January 20, 2017) that criticize the use of the word “relationship,” and, yet, here I am using it myself. The earlier articles stand, but I am here seeking to recapture the word “relationship” and use it in its older, theological meaning. Despite that vast vocabulary of English (the largest language in existence), words still create limits. I hope the reader will understand and be patient with me.

Source
Alone – You Are Not at Glory To God For All Things on October 31, 2018.



Frei Estevão Homemlivre e o Maometanismo


Achei curioso que Frei Estevão Homemlivre fosse, desnecessariamente, pegar com o Maometanismo comparando-o às Modernas Religiões Idolátricas – “The monotheism of Islam substituted God as individual for God as Trinity. As such, it might be the first modern religion.” ou, em português, “O monoteísmo do Islão substituiu Deus como indivíduo por Deus como Trindade. Como tal, pode ser a primeira religião moderna.” – o que, parece-me, nos dá a medida da penetração da propaganda anti-maometana nos Estados Unidos da América.

A grande diferença entre o Cristianismo e o Maometanismo reside, não no Trinirarismo – não aceite por alguns cristãos –, mas no facto de os Cristãos considerarem Jesus, Filho de Maria, Deus e os Maometanos se recusarem a fazê-lo.

Os Maometanos consideram Jesus, Filho de Maria, como um Profeta, um Grande Profeta, o Segundo Maior Profeta – o Primeiro Maior Profeta é Maomé –, mas não aceitam que Jesus seja de Natureza Divina.

Também não aceitam nem a Morte de Jesus na Cruz nem a Sua Ressurreição, afirmam que Deus não O deixou morrer, que O arrebatou, e que O mantém junto a Si até ao Dia da Ressurreição (يوم القيامة‎).

Fora isso aceitam tudo o que os Cristão Católicos – Romanos e Constantinopolitanos – aceitam, incluindo a Concepção Virginal de Maria.

E a comparação do Maometanismo Modernas Religiões Idolátricas é verdadeiramente assombrosa!

Então compara o Maometanismo com os Modernos Endeusamentos da Ciência (Gnose Moderna), de Uma Particular Classe Social, de Uma Particular Cultura, de Uma Particular Raça, de Um Particular Sistema Económico-Financeiro, de Um Particular Sistema Político?



Referências
  1. Sunday Reading: Alone – You Are Not at Oriental Review.
  2. Yoda na Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.
  3. Escatologia islâmica na Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.
  4. Nascimento virginal de Jesus na Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre.

Origem da imagem
  • Sunday Reading: Alone – You Are Not at Oriental Review.


Etiqueta principal: Religião.
___________________________________________________________________________

30 de outubro de 2018

JEWS · MONEY · RACE



As palavras jews (“judeus”), money, (“dinheiro”), race (raça) – ou outras delas derivadas, ou com elas estreitamente relacionadas – aparecem e reaparecem com extrema frequência nas publicações em Língua Inglesa, especialmente nas com origem Britânica, ou Estadunidense.

Porque será?



Etiqueta principal: Ideologia.
___________________________________________________________________________

8 de outubro de 2018

Today is Columbus Day 2018 in United States of America


Photo Source David Berkowitz | CC BY 2.0

OCTOBER 8, 2018

Columbus Day

Romancing Greed, Slavery, and Genocide


by 
IPEK S. BURNETT

at
CounterPunch


Christopher Columbus has long been a patriotic symbol for the United States of America. Honored with more place names than any other figure of American history except for George Washington, he has been praised as a great explorer—courageous, resolute, and victorious. If Columbus is this hero in the American imagination, a most important ancestor of this country, on the day dedicated to him, America needs to remember the whole of his legacy. The avalanche of arrogance, greed, and violence.

In 1492, while sailing through the Atlantic, Christopher Columbus was confident of what lay ahead: fortune and fame for him, a colonial empire for Spain, converts for the Church. Yet island after island, only the smallest traces of gold had emerged, not the vast and deep mines that Columbus had anticipated. Then again, since he had promised King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella riches from the East, Columbus could not simply return the fleets with nothing to show. So began the great slave raid.

On the first of his voyages, in where we now know was the Bahamas, Columbus had encountered the Taíno people. On meeting them ashore, he described them in his journal as hospitable, good-willed, handsome, naked, and docile. And almost in the same breath, he reflected: “They ought to be good servants and of good skill. . . . And I believe that they would easily be made Christians.” Even as he praised the gentleness and generosity of the natives, Columbus had begun to consider enslaving them, noting “with fifty men they could all be subjected and made to do all that one wished.”

In 1495, during his second voyage, Columbus and his men gathered fifteen hundred Arawak men, women, and children as captives; of these, the five hundred strongest men and women were put on the ships. Then Columbus announced that any Christian could help himself to as many of the remaining captives as he pleased. The natives onboard were placed in pens. Of the five hundred, about two hundred died on route. The ones who were taken as slaves worked at a ferocious pace on the lands which the colonizers claimed for themselves, and died by the hundreds.

Despite all counter evidence, Columbus had not yet given up on gold, either. Again during the second voyage, in the province of Cicao on Haiti, he ordered all Arawak men and women fourteen and older to find gold. Once they collected and delivered their share to one of the armed posts, they were to be given stamped copper tokens to hang about their necks as proof of their accomplished work. Those without the copper tokens were to be punished for not turning in the gold.

As Howard Zinn reflects, the truth was the Arawak people had been given an impossible task. There simply was not enough gold on the land. Utterly helpless, some tried to flee to the mountains. They were hunted down with dogs, and if found, immediately killed.

By the third voyage, some of Columbus’s men had become resentful. They were tired of the difficult conditions—illness, hunger, storms, and struggles with the natives—and discouraged by the lack of gold and other promised riches. Their complaints about Columbus’s tyrannical policies and practices finally reached King Ferdinand’s and Queen Isabella’s ears. The king and queen were already feeling disappointed by the small returns they had received from the voyages, so they decided to have the admiral arrested. In October 1500, Columbus was put in chains to be sent back to Spain.

Following this humiliating return to Spain, Columbus wrote the Book of Prophecies in which he reflected on the cosmic importance and divine purpose of his ventures. Amid an incoherent mix of quotations from the Bible, medieval theology, astrology, mysticism, and complex cosmology, the book delivered one essential message: “Cristobal Colon was chosen by Lord as the divine instrument to fulfill the ancient prophecies that would rescue Christianity before the Apocalypse.” In historian and Columbus biographer Kirkpatrick Sale’s opinion, the Book of Prophecies, a jumble of documents with a rambling introduction, was received as an “acute embarrassment” by most Columbus hagiographers. For the most part, they chose to forget or forgive it as a product of “mental hallucination” or “a temporary dark and sordid stupor.”

Columbus died, in Walt Whitman’s words, “a batter’d, wreck’d old man” with a “heavy heart.” Yet looking back, it would be irresponsible to classify Columbus’s psychological distress as an individual’s isolated phenomena, for the consequences of his illusions were not restricted to him alone. The tyranny and bloodshed that started with Columbus’s expeditions continued for centuries, staining the histories of both the North and South American Continents. During this time, slavery, genocide, and the annihilation of the land were committed again and again in the name of civilization, progress, and perhaps most significantly, divine will. If Columbus was possessed with illusions of exceptionalism and spiritual entitlement, so were the generations that came to the New World in his footsteps.

In her essay “Columbus: Gone, but Not Forgotten,” bell hooks urges Americans to interrogate the past critically and rethink the meaning of Columbus’s legacy. She believes that the way the history of Columbus is taught and culturally remembered casts a large shadow over American consciousness, restating a national commitment to imperialism and white supremacy. She asserts that the cultural idealization of Columbus’s so-called discovery means romanticizing oppression, corruption, even murder and rape.

If nothing else, Columbus Day is an opportunity to name these brutalities and mourn the violent truths of history.

• Ipek S. Burnett is a psychologist, novelist, and academic living in San Francisco.


My comment
I think all this very peculiar.
Christopher Columbus, a Hispanic and Catholic, as National Hero of the US, a Germanic, Jewish and Protestant country.
And all this concern with the slavery and genocide, by a citizen of a country that exterminated the indigenous peoples and was one of the largest importers of slaves in history.
Very, very, peculiar. Something does not fit.


Tema principal: América.
___________________________________________________________________________

Dúvida atroz !!!


Social Justice Warrior - Feminism Vs. Racism

¡¡¡ dúvida atroz !!!

¡¿ a Garina ou o Preto ?!

 ¡¿ por quem deve a Guerreira da Justiça Social terçar armas ?! 

😎

Guerreira da Justiça social – Feminismo Vs. Racismo


Guerreira
O que é que está a acontecer ali?

Amiga
Parece que o gajo apalpou o traseiro à fulana e que ela o esbofeteou …

Amiga
… e a Guerreira da Justiça Social não sabe se deva ficar brava com o sujeito por assédio sexual ou se com a sujeita por espancar um negro.

From: Social Justice Warrior - Feminism Vs. Racism.

Tema principal: Curtas.
___________________________________________________________________________

7 de outubro de 2018

The Curse of a Promised Land


.
 Why is America Collapsing Before It Became a Civilized Nation? 
.
.
In recent essays, I’ve advanced a strange, bizarre, and foolish notion. That America labours under something like a curse. The curse of a promised land. What a funny and odd thing to say, I know. And yet how many promised lands do you see over which the specters of violence, ruin, and hate don’t seem to perpetually hang, like a funeral shroud? Over which the very same tribes seem doomed to fight over and over again, acting out something like an endless, perpetual, recurring tragedy? And isn’t all that precisely what America seems trapped by?

Now, this is going to be a jarring and dark essay. I recommend you don’t read it at all, in fact. Go watch Anderson Cooper or the latest sitcom. Do something acceptable. And if you still want to think about this strange and grim question — why is America collapsing before it became a civilized society? — with me, then come back. But in a while — if you really want to.

If you want me to put in that question in the terms of American discours, it goes like this. America is a uniquely backwards place, an outlier among nations, a place that “grew” economically but never really progressed much socially, it always has been, and it seems unable, ever, really, to shake off the crushing weight of its past — why is that? But I don’t want to speak to you like a pundit in this essay — with the stilted language of neoliberal quasi-statistical pseudoscience. Just as one tiny and mortal human being to another, I suppose, starting here. It is as if America’s soul is broken by some kind of terrible curse. But why? And who cursed it, anyways?
.
.
Tema principal: América.
___________________________________________________________________________

4 de outubro de 2018

Feminismo, Marxismo, Mulheres-Maravilha



Não temam Camaradas!
As Mulheres Maravilha libertá-las-ão dos Homens e do seus Pénis Detestáveis e serão então livres e felizes para sempre.

O Feminismo é uma ideologia avançada por um movimento político e é totalitário nos seus propósitos e métodos.
É um Marxismo de roca de fiar que usa a antiga retórica Marxista colocando “mulheres” onde antes estava “proletariado” e “patriarcado” onde antes estava “capitalismo”.
O objetivo do feminismo não é a igualdade, mas a supremacia feminina: a Ginocracia.




Slutwalk:
Feminism as Gynocracy,
and Why Andrew J. Patrick Is in Trouble


Feminism is an ideology advanced by a political movement and is totalitarian in both its purposes and methods. It is distaff Marxism, substituting “women” for the “proletariat” — and the “patriarchy” for “capitalism” — in the ancient Marxian rhetoric. The goal of feminism is not equality, but female supremacy: Gynocracy.

Posted on September 11, 2013 at The Other McCain

Andrew J. Patrick is blaming me for his being harassed by a notorious left-wing troll blogger, after Andrew quoted me:
What people used to mean by the word “rape” has been revised in recent decades because of college women complaining about date rape …
Date rape is an apparently common campus crime that usually involves two drunk young people, one of whom has an erect penis, and the other of whom is unable to avert what the erect penis typically does.
That quote from my Aug. 12 American Spectator column “SlutWalk Insanity,” expresses facts and common sense, not ideology.

Feminism is an ideology advanced by a political movement and is totalitarian in both its purposes and methods. It is distaff Marxism, substituting “women” for the “proletariat” — and the “patriarchy” for “capitalism” — in the ancient Marxian rhetoric. The goal of feminism is not equality, but female supremacy: Gynocracy.

Advancing this totalitarian cause requires feminists to exacerbate hostility between men and women, by accusing men (collectively) of wrongfully oppressing women (collectively), so that all women are inspired to a sense of shared grievance against men.

Once you understand feminism as an ideology, you are no longer an intellectual hostage to the categorical syntax of their progaganda, in which skepticism toward their rhetoric is automatically denounced as thoughtcrime, where dissent is “hate” and we can only talk about women in ways approved by feminists. After decades of militant activism, people now unconsciously monitor their words lest they give offense to the feminist sensibility, so that arguments which directly contradict feminist ideology have the power of shocking outrage:
We had turned the corner at U Street and were marching up 14th Street when the woman with the megaphone leading SlutWalk DC started a new chant: “We love consensual sex! We love consensual sex!” Well, OK, but who doesn’t? Is there any actual opposition to this agenda? Is there an Anti-Consensual Sex Movement that someone forgot to tell us about? Oblivious to the absurdity, about 400 women joined in shouting this slogan, which was at least better than their previous chants: “Blame the system, not the victim!” and “One! Two! Three! Four! We won’t take it anymore! Five! Six! Seven! Eight! Stop the violence! Stop the hate!” The “violence” to which that chant referred is rape, and “hate” is any discussion of rape (or any other subject) that doesn’t conform to feminist ideology. To distill their rhetoric to its totalitarian essence: “Shut up, because rape.”The SlutWalk movement is about rape in pretty much the same sense Nazism was about the Versailles Treaty — it’s the legitimate grievance that empowers a movement of irrational hatred. We may laugh at the carnival sideshow aspect of women stripping down to their underwear to march down the street in broad daylight, carrying deliberately provocative posters and shouting nonsensical slogans. But the leaders of the movement have a radical ideology they take very seriously, and that ideology is sufficiently influential that anyone who criticizes it risks condemnation as being anti-woman, or even pro-rape …
That was the lead of my SlutWalk column and the reader perceives that, if feminists were offended, it was because they hate the truth.

Read everything and the comments here.

Tema principal: Ideologia.
___________________________________________________________________________
.

30 de setembro de 2018

The Deeper Meaning of Kavanaughkampf


The Deeper Meaning of Kavanaughkampf


By Smitty at The Other McCain on September 28, 2018


We are only as strong as our weakest link…

Should we be just a bit creeped out by the Left fetishing these SCOTUS seats?

Patriots respect all three branches set forth in the Constitution. It’s a public thing. A practical matter. It’s needful.

Keep in mind that, for the Left, which rejects God, government itself becomes a quasi-theological object. Lefties ignore the law (e.g. BHO’s administration) all the time, but note the visceral pleasure they seem to feel when saying “Trump broke THE LAW.”

Couple this government-is-‘god’ view with the Postmodern concept of Truth as a social construct. We’ve just seen a feminist shrink from California (three strikes, and that lady’s waaaaay out) decide that, nearly two score years ago, a SCOTUS nominee got all PG-13 on her.

Read more here.


_____________________________________________________________________________