Preaching to the Choir (Reader Post)

By 73 Comments 2,098 views

choir

There are numerous CONSERVATIVE web sites to which we can turn for the truth, the unedited story. Such web sites as Flopping Aces do a tremendous job of disseminating our thoughts, perspectives, and opinions. They provide facts that allow us to form our opinions based upon the complete story. Unlike most of the MSM. There are, of course, exceptions (Fox comes to mind), but the vast majority of the MSM promulgates liberal hypocrisy, half-truths, and out-and-out lies (Chris Matthews of leg tingle fame comes to mind).

Even though there are numerous conservative web sites, only conservatives (for the most part) visit them. Liberals who comment are quickly shown to be thinking un-critically. We conservatives are “preaching to the choir.” We need to expand our horizons.

What got me thinking along these lines was Sarah Palin’s comment about Pope Francis’ recent remarks, and Bill Maher’s reaction. And the MSM non-reaction to Martin Bashir’s remarks.

Pope Francis said:

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.   [emphasis mine]

Was Pope Francis referring to the “trickle-down” theory as crude and naïve? If so, his economic expert credentials were omitted. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts …[.]” Gee, the Pope was quick to offer HIS opinion. I could not find any reference to substantiate the Pope’s opinion. Yet the MSM reported the Pope’s opinon as if it was fact. Personal note: my intent here is not to attack Catholics (I’m married to one), but to illustrate that the Pope has an agenda.

To which Palin responded:

He’s had some statements that to me sound kind of liberal, has taken me aback, has kind of surprised me. There again, unless I really dig deep into what his messaging is, and do my own homework, I’m not going to just trust what I hear in the media.

I’m kinda trying to follow what his agenda is. You know he came out with a couple of things in the media but again I’m not one to trust the media’s interpretation of somebody’s message but having read through media outlets.

Palin then, as interpreted by the MSM, “apologized” for her remarks.

It was not my intention to be critical of Pope Francis. I was reminding viewers that we need to do our own homework on news subjects, and I hadn’t done mine yet on the Pope’s recent comments as reported by the media. Knowing full well how often the media mischaracterizes a person’s comments (especially a religious leader’s), I don’t trust them to get it right when it comes to reporting on the Vatican.

I apologize for not being clearer in my response, thus opening the door to critical media that does what it does best in ginning up controversy.   [emphasis mine]

Bill Maher, ignoring Palin’s comments about not trusting the media’s interpretation, had to interject his opinion into this situation. Maher said, “Well, if she thinks Pope Francis is liberal, wait until she sees what Jesus has been saying.” Maher then presented a series of tweets that he claimed was exchanged between the Pope and Palin. The tweets were supposed to (I guess) be funny, but they weren’t, and further illustrated Maher’s opinion. Maher never got around to the crux of what Palin said about not trusting the MSM. Nor did he get around to citing what Jesus said, as illustrated below. I’m pretty sure Maher has not read it. And, Maher never got around to saying that the Pope was offering an unauthenticated opinion. Typical liberal.

I guess Pope Francis needs to be reminded about what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Matthew 22: 15-21.

15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.

16 They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are.

17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”
18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?

19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius,
20 and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”
21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”
(NIV)

Jesus was saying that politics and religion don’t mix – PERIOD. Politics (and politicians) FORCES its agenda upon us. We Christians (and other religions) CHOOSE to act charitably.

If there was ever a single Biblical passage that shows Pope Francis to have a liberal agenda, this is it. But does the MSM choose to interpret Pope Francis’ remarks thusly? In the immortal word of John Belushi on SNL: “Nooooooooooooooooooooo!” So, again the MSM edits, chooses only what will further its agenda. If the MSM and liberal web sites are presented with this, they, like ostriches, stick there heads in the sand in order to ignore unpleasant facts or situations.

It’s little things, like the Pope’s statement of opinion, that make liberals easy to trip up (if they ever decide to listen and think about what they’ve heard). “Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up” is their usual response.

So, in an effort to stop “preaching to the choir,” if any FA readers know of some liberal web sites where we can comment, we need to know them. One of my favorites is BlogCritics.org, but I hate to give them any publicity. And if any readers know how to get liberals, once they have been presented the truth, to acknowledge it, we need to know that as well. Alas, I’m afraid that it will never happen, that DrJohn is correct: “… nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.” But hope springs eternal.

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at The Pot Stirrer, my very conservative web site.

73 Responses to “Preaching to the Choir (Reader Post)”

  1. 51

    Tom

    @retire05:

    Yes, the ’50′s were awful, weren’t they? Men worked to support their families and women stayed home with the children to love, and nurture. More Americans were becoming college educated than ever before. And the middle class was beginning to afford things their parents could have only dreamed of.

    Ah, but yes, 2013, with its high divorce rate, high abortion rate (that is destroying the black family, btw), drug use, sexual permissiveness, middle class wage reduction, all so much better than 1953, right?

    So it must suck that you’re stuck in 2013, huh? By the way, your idyllic Disney version of the 1950s sort of left out that whole Jim Crow thing that was happening while you were frolicking your way to the soda fountain for an egg cream. Best days of your life, I’m sure.

    Scriptures most certainly judges those who are lazy. Many now are poor because they are lazy. The Bible is clear; if you do not work, you should not eat. Can’t get much plainer than that.

    Folks it doesn’t get any better than this. You must have an interesting version of the Bible.

    The version I’m familiar with:
    Luke 6:20-21
    20 Looking at his disciples, he said:
    “Blessed are you who are poor,
    for yours is the kingdom of God.
    21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
    for you will be satisfied.

    Retire5 version
    20 Looking at his disciples, he said:
    “Blessed are you who are poor,
    for yours is the opportunity to get a god damn job, because I’m not supporting your lazy ass.
    21 Blessed are you who hunger now,
    for you will not be satisfied you lazy freeloader.

  2. 52

    retire05

    @Tom:

    So it must suck that you’re stuck in 2013, huh? By the way, your idyllic Disney version of the 1950s sort of left out that whole Jim Crow thing that was happening while you were frolicking your way to the soda fountain for an egg cream. Best days of your life, I’m sure.

    What an arrogant ass you are, Tom. Now, where did I say the ’50’s were perfect. They weren’t. Especially for black Americans and those soldiers who came back from war torn Europe and the Pacific theater broken physically.

    But the 50’s showed strides being made. African Americans were beginning to graduate from college in greater numbers. People like Thomas Sowell, Colin Powell and Barbara Jordan, who was, btw, a brilliant and great woman. You should read her Congressional testimony on illegal immigration some time. I would suggest it would help expand your mind, but then, that is might near impossible.

    So tell us, Tom, do you give half your income away to some family where the man (if there is one present) is just too lazy to support them? Or are you like the rest of the liberals who blather on about “charity” all the while sticking your hand in another’s pocket?

  3. 53

    Tom

    @retire05:

    What an arrogant ass you are, Tom. Now, where did I say the ’50′s were perfect. They weren’t. Especially for black Americans and those soldiers who came back from war torn Europe and the Pacific theater broken physically.

    I”m sorry for misinterpreting your 1000 % positive for the 50s with no reservations comments about the 50s. I should have anticipated, when pressed, you’d add these tepid qualifying statements. My bad.

    But the 50′s showed strides being made. African Americans were beginning to graduate from college in greater numbers. People like Thomas Sowell, Colin Powell and Barbara Jordan, who was, btw, a brilliant and great woman. You should read her Congressional testimony on illegal immigration some time. I would suggest it would help expand your mind, but then, that is might near impossible.

    Thomas Sowell again. Black people topic = mention love of Thomas Sowell. “But don’t get me wrong, I’ve got a black friend. His name is Thomas Sowell. He’s a conservative black man. A good one. He’s very against welfare for blacks and aggressiveness in black males”.

    So tell us, Tom, do you give half your income away to some family where the man (if there is one present) is just too lazy to support them? Or are you like the rest of the liberals who blather on about “charity” all the while sticking your hand in another’s pocket?

    I guarantee more of my money ends up in the hands of others than yours does. And I’m talking about money, not your week old bundt cake you forced onto some poor lady at the church food drive.

  4. 54

    Richard Wheeler

    @Tom: I wish everyone would read your #51 and #53–they’d see the picture you paint of 05 and her interpretation of The Bible according to Sowell 2013—hilarious.
    ” Week old bunt cake forced on some little old lady”
    You know damn well she ain’t finished with you.

  5. 57

    Nanny G

    @Tom: Scriptures most certainly judges those who are lazy. Many now are poor because they are lazy. The Bible is clear; if you do not work, you should not eat. Can’t get much plainer than that.

    Folks it doesn’t get any better than this. You must have an interesting version of the Bible.

    The version I’m familiar with:
    Luke 6:20-21

    You make a false comparison between ”poor” people and people who REFUSE TO WORK.
    You conflate the two, but they are not necessarily overlapping.
    The verse Retir05 is quoting is from 2 Thessalonians 3.
    Here is the context:

    10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: Anyone unwilling to work should not eat. 11 For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work. 12 Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

    Seems early Christians had a problem with idle men and women.
    But while the Apostles lived they got healthful words so as to live in a proper Christian manner.
    Today we have mixed messages from a variety of leaders, secular and religious.
    Taking a verse out of context is the easiest way of ”tickling the itching ears” of those eager to take the easy road. (See 2 Timothy 4:2-4)
    What was it Jesus said about the wide, easy road?
    See Matthew 7.

  6. 58

    retire05

    @Tom:

    I”m sorry for misinterpreting your 1000 % positive for the 50s with no reservations comments about the 50s. I should have anticipated, when pressed, you’d add these tepid qualifying statements. My bad.

    Oh, my, I’m crushed. I’m being admonished by Let Me Equivocate By Adding A Caveat Tom.

    I guarantee more of my money ends up in the hands of others than yours does. And I’m talking about money, not your week old bundt cake you forced onto some poor lady at the church food drive.

    Ummm, last time I checked, Tommy, bundt cake is not used as currency. But, not knowing what desperate conditions you may live in, it could be for you. Perhaps you have resorted to the barter system to avoid those taxes you so espouse.

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Good to see that your true character shows as you defend Tom who likes to resort to age discrimination with insults. Perhaps you can share with him (since you refuse to answer me) just what your age is.

    I find it especially comical that you are so blind that you don’t realize that Tom subscribes to a philosophy where he would have absolutely no problem separating you from what ever financial gain you might have made in your life so that government bureaucrats could redistribute your wealth to those they feel are more deserving.

    The multi-headed hydra cares not who it eats when it is hungry.

  7. 60

    Nanny G

    @retire05:
    Yes.
    6 times in the KJV.
    Proverbs 6:6
    Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise
    Proverbs 6:9
    How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?
    Proverbs 10:26
    As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him.
    Proverbs 13:4
    The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.
    Proverbs 20:4
    The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.
    Proverbs 26:16
    The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.

    Other translations use, ”lazy person,” (CEB) “lazybones,” (CJB) “lazy people,” (CEV) “slacker,” (HCSB) “lazy bum,” (NOG) and other choice terms.
    See:
    http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Proverbs%206:6

  8. 61

    Pete

    Pope Francis certainly says things that are making Catholics (I am one) examine their personal interpretation of faith. I certainly agree with Palin that taking what the media reports on Papal statements is foolish – one needs to check the original source to avoid being manipulated by the leftist bent of the MSM.

    That being said, it is exceptionally difficult to defend the Pope when he makes statements that are too easily in line with the disaster of ‘liberation theology’ – nothing more than marxism trying to hijack Latin American Catholic clergy. Christ said, “The poor you will always have with you..” when Judas got angry over the prostitute using expensive perfume to wash Jesus’ feet, because in Judas’ view the perfume could have been sold instead to buy food for the poor.

    Charity is freely given, and far more prominent from Christian nations than non-Christian. Leftist/Marxist government coercion/theft by bureaucracy, performed ostensibly to create economic equality, results in economic shortages every time it occurs, and in the widening gap between the wealthy and the poor.

    The glaring hypocrisy of ultra-wealthy leftists demanding that everyone else be taxed at higher and higher “progressive” tax rates in order to give money (buy the votes) of the uneducated and the lazy, all while they sneer down on the middle class as being selfish for wanting to hold on to what they earn is clear to see but never commented on. If the ultra-wealthy leftists really cared about the well-being of the poor, then people like John Kerry, Matt Damon, and the rest of the progressive scumbags would be freely giving up their multiple millions to provide for the poor. But they prefer to assuage their feelings of guilt using our middle class wallets.

    Regardless, His Holiness is – for Catholics, anyway – the earthly arbiter of Catholic doctrine. This doesn’t mean he, per Catholic Doctrine, is infallable unless he makes an ex cathedra proclamation on an issue of morality. His comments regarding economics were not made as an ex cathedra statement, nor were published as a papal encyclical, so his comments represent his personal opinion and not a defining statement of dogma binding upon Catholics.

    Interesting that all the leftists jumping up and down in support of this statement totally ignore Humanae Vitae and the fact that if His Holiness was supporting any kind of change regarding the morality of homosexuality he seems to have left current Catholic doctrine opposing homosexual unions and declaring homosexuality as ‘inherently disordered’ completely unchanged.

    Based on some of the comments in this thread attempting to quote the Bible in support of leftist ideology, I would remind everyone that Christ also noted that even Lucifer can quote Scripture.

    And to my protestant amigos here, pardon me for not listing the specific verses. You know us Catholics weren’t trained to memorize the verses….just like we don’t ususally have choirs that sing as well as you guys…..

  9. 62

    ilovebeeswarzone

    Ditto
    THE POPE SAID: AMERICA IS PREPARED TO ACCEPT LIFE IN EVERY STAGE,
    FROM THE MOTHER’S WOMB,
    TO OLD AGES,
    WELL TOO BAD FOR IT, THE AMERICAN MOTHERS WOULD BE FULL OF MILK,
    BUT THE LEADER HELP THEM ABORT THEIR AMERICAN BABYS IN THEIR WOMB,

  10. 63

    Tom

    @Nanny G:

    You make a false comparison between ”poor” people and people who REFUSE TO WORK.

    Actually, Nan, you’re the one bringing the moral dimension into it. As I said, when Jesus mentions the poor in scripture, never does he make a distinction between “poor” and “lazy”, nor does he prescribe a different level of care for the two. You’re injecting your own personal bias against this amorphous category of alleged lazy people you feel are responsible for their own circumstances, and whom you feel comfortable shunning. Don’t blame your own biases on a false interpretation of scripture.

  11. 68

    Aqua

    @Tom:

    And to your point, he explicitly mentions acts of personal charity. Here’s a question I obviously have no answer for: when voluntary charity isn’t cutting it (as it clearly isn’t) would Jesus be unhappy to see government filling the gap? We are more or less talking about the dreaded “wealth redistribution” after all. My guess is he’d be more concerned with the results, rather than the process.

    I doubt that seriously. I’m certainly in no position to speak for the Christ, but I really can’t see Him approving of our definition of the poor. “Teacher, should we pay our taxes so others may have cable,” “Verily I say unto thee, render unto Comcast what is Comcast’s”
    Yeah, I’m not feeling it.
    The CBO just put out a report that the top 40% pay over 100% of taxes. The write-up is here:
    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/11/cbo-the-rich-pay-over-100-percent-of-taxes/
    (Yeah I know, DailyCaller not exactly non-partisan)
    But the CBO report is here, it’s just in government-ese.
    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf
    But, back to Jesus for a second. Jesus wasn’t interested in just results. A vast government inefficiently taking care of personal responsibility would not have impressed Him. In the Widow’s Offering: (Mark 12: 41 – 44)

    Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.
    Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

    So naturally I don’t understand why someone feels a need to religiously codify this “no government wealth distribution” mantra by completely perverting the canonical teachings of Jesus. I suspect this urge originates with the relatively new American strain of Christianity that preaches that if you’re successful, that means you’re one hell of a good person (with the obvious implication to the contrary left unsaid).

    I don’t think it perverts the canonical teachings of Christ. I just can’t see Christ promoting wealth redistribution in the name of abortion access. And to show it isn’t a left or right thing, I can’t see Christ promoting wealth redistribution in the name of endless wars.

    Maybe one difference between myself and some on the Right is that I don’t walk around angry all day that someone received an unemployment check or an EBT card.

    I don’t walk around angry. It does make me sad. It’s not the fact that people are getting unemployment checks, it’s people getting 99+ weeks of unemployment checks and calling it funemployment. It makes me sad that our society is making unemployment cool, they even have funemployment websites. It’s not that people are getting EBT cards, it’s generation after generation learning tricks to make a living out of living off of others and society doing all it can to lessen the stigma of government assistance.
    The Church I go to has a St. Vincent de Paul ministry. It provides assistance to those in need. The amount of money the ministry provides is incredible, but they help the truly needy. Along with money, food and clothing are provided, as well as financial counseling. If you have a $300 a month cable bill with all the channels and 25mbps Internet, and can’t afford food, they are going to tell you why. They will still give you food for a while, but if you refuse to help yourself, they are going to move on to families that truly need assistance.
    But our society has decided that there should be no stigma attached to unemployment or EBT. And it looks like you are saying the only virtuous people are those that just suck it up and let it happen. Which brings me back to the CBO report……..40% of our nation is providing for the other 60%. Just how much longer do you think a model like that will continue to function before the 40% take their ball to another playground?

  12. 69

    ilovebeeswarzone

    JUAN
    DON’T COLLAPSE, SANTA CLAUS HAS TURN BLUE,
    FOR THIS YEAR ALONE, THAT’S THE COLOR BETWEEN BLACK AND WHITE,
    HAPPY NOW?
    FORWARD IS DRAW ROF

  13. 70

    retire05

    @Aqua:

    But our society has decided that there should be no stigma attached to unemployment or EBT. And it looks like you are saying the only virtuous people are those that just suck it up and let it happen.

    Years ago I read Frank McCourt’s book, Angela’s Ashes. The one thing that struck me so hard about the book was how McCourt talked about being on the dole. His shame, and humiliation came through, loud and clear and the shame he described his mother feeling brought tears to my eyes.. It seemed to shape McCourt’s goal of never being on the dole as an adult.

    Ben Franklin was right; no one should ever become comfortable in their poverty, but that is what we have now. Millions of able bodied people, comfortable in their poverty, with absolutely no ambition to make their lives as successful as those they envy whose wealth they want given to them.

    Which brings me back to the CBO report……..40% of our nation is providing for the other 60%. Just how much longer do you think a model like that will continue to function before the 40% take their ball to another playground?

    Bingo!

  14. 71

    ilovebeeswarzone

    retire05
    THE OLD MOVIES tell us that the men where waiting for the employer to come and pick them up
    to work at his factory, or other business,
    what did change that? I say the unions beater and demolishers change that, they took the interest of the worker and help on making their lives better with better paid,
    then the unions change they got hungry for more and lost the meaning of helping the worker,
    they became bullies and focus on their own profit,
    and it spiral down for them, because the busyness hire their employees and don’t abuse them,
    they pay good and there is no more need for bullies, it only serve to keep the business away now,
    and the unions partner with the government they elected and look at the economy now,
    so the change to a better economy tell you what to let go, there is no other solution,
    to get the jobs back, get the intruders out from the top down,
    the strong trees are being choke by the poisonous little trees
    full of spines, you must cut those to the underground to
    take out the roots, and the beautiful tree will rise up again,
    tall and shady, to cool the ground where people sit
    after a good day work,

  15. 72

    retire05

    @ilovebeeswarzone:

    Bees, there was once a time when unions had a place in the U.S., just as they did in other nations. Their sole purpose was to create an atmosphere where a man could work a factory job and get paid for his labor as well as being safe while doing it.

    But what no one realized was, that while the general populace thought Franklin Roosevelt was a god for getting labor laws passed, those very laws made unions obsolete since the laws addressed all the workplace concerns the labor unions had addressed. i.e. it put the labor unions in a position of being useless. The labor union leaders changed course, and instead of really representing those laborers who paid their salaries, they started cozying up with politicians to gain influence.

    Now labor unions are nothing more than an arm of the Democrat Party. It does them no good but to get their pictures taken with a Congressman/Senator/President. Richard Trumka is nothing more than a mafia don, one who frequently is invited to the White House. Same with all the other union big wigs who draw huge salaries (along with huge expense accounts and benefits) and can say “See, see who is in this picture with me? Look at the power I have.

    Now the unions are pushing for laws to make illegals legal. Why? Don’t they know that those illegals will only drive down wages and put Americans out of work? Sure they do. People like Trumka are not stupid. But that is not their worry. As more and more Americans support right-to-work laws in their states, the illegals represent a gold mine of union dues that will keep union leaders on private planes and eating in the finest restaurants. Richard Trumka makes almost $302,000/yr and Edwin Hill, IBEW president makes $381,000/yr. Those kind of salaries require a lot of dues paying members as the union leaders complain about Wall Street.

    It’s not about the worker anymore, it’s all about power for a select few.

  16. 73

    FAITH7

    Liberals: “(if they ever decide to listen and think about what they’ve heard).” This is true – especially when the Ofraud said he wanted to “Fundamentally Transform America” I really would like to know what the Liberals thought they heard or if they heard anything at all?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *