Skip to content

Commence Firing; Fire At Will, Conservatives

04 May 2014 @ 17:58

Democrat Representative Adam Schiff of California, it seems, has been tasked by the Left to fire the first shots in their offensive to delegitimize the House Select Committee that will be charged with investigating the Administration’s handling of the Benghazi Attack.

From Fox News, we learn:

A top Republican on the House intelligence committee slammed his Democratic colleague Sunday for suggesting fellow Democrats boycott the newly announced committee tasked with probing the Benghazi attacks.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong.”

The call for a boycott was made earlier by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner’s announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi.

The congressman said Democrats should not give the select committee more “credibility” by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a “smoking gun” showing the White House politicized the tragedy.

“I think it’s a colossal waste of time,” said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”

Tip of the fedora to Darleen Click [do click here to see her full post], who comments:

There still is some sense of the Constitution and its principles flickering amongst the hoi polloi that needs stomping out. Can’t let one dead ambassador and three dead Seals stand in the way of fundamental change now, can we?

Of course not!  Do you know, Darleen, they’re doing ‘the Lord’s work’, as it were [as to which ‘Lord’, well….], trying to make the World a place where we can ‘grow apple trees and honey bees and snow-white turtle doves’ — you know: Heaven On Earth, Utopia, Immanentizing The Eschaton…cool and groovy stuff like that.

There’s a lesson here…

The Left is very savvy at delegitimizing our beliefs. They may or may not succeed in this particular campaign that this apparatchik Schiff has begun, but, the reality is, the Left has succeeded many more times than not.

This is why they end-up, most of the time, controlling The Narrative

This is why it is imperative that we begin to refuse to legitimize the Left’s beliefs [of course, we have the added advantage that all Leftist Thinking is perverse, a mutation of Reason].

And when we do this, and the Left inevitably tries to delegitimize us for doing so by labeling us such things as ‘raaaaacist’, we should respond just as Andrew Breitbart used to:

Just Say ‘So?

Time is truly wastin’
There’s no guarantee
Smile’s in the makin’
You gotta fight the powers that be

8 Comments
  1. darleenclick permalink
    04 May 2014 @ 18:33 18:33

    Leftism is a religion. And a jealous, hate-filled, take-no-prisoners one who will not stand for neither heretics nor apostasy.

    It’s why they are soft on Islamism (ideology as religion). Like recognizes like.

    • 04 May 2014 @ 21:18 21:18

      Exactly.

      I’ve been making that argument for several years.

  2. 04 May 2014 @ 22:41 22:41

    “Leftism is a religion.”

    The question in all of this is: where does authority lie?

    In classical Christian theology, and the New Testament, there is a distinction between civil authority and religious authority. Not a separation, for that is impossible — nothing is separate from anything — but a distinction. And a distinction with very, very practical consequences.

    Civil authority is the power to punish. Religious authority is the power to free. One occurs in the limitations of finitude. The other occurs in the realm of the infinite.

    No one person or group of persons can serve as the repository of both authorities, both powers. Not in the New Testament and not in classical Christian theology. These are distinct authorities and powers. They intersect continuously in ordinary life, but they are fundamentally different authorities, different powers. Held in stewardship by entirely different people.

    When someone claims both authorities, either as an individual or as a group, merry hell ensues. Death and destruction quickly appear and sweep forward.

    All tyrannies rest on an assertion of joint civil and religious authority. In the current case, the religious authority claimed is that of gaia-religion/eco-religion and, as back-up, race-religion. Every tyrant creates or adopts a religion of nature in some form. Fascists, Communists, Environmentalists, Racists, Mohammedans — all create a worship of some aspect of nature. That is, an idolatry. And demand obeisance: “throw climate change deniers in jail;” “throw racists away from any ability to sustain life.”

    The pattern is very simple and utterly predictable. Join civil and religious authority, welcome tyranny, death and despair. And revolt.

    The big evil of claiming the Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Good Samaritan mean taxpayers must give their money a government official to be redistributed to “the poor,” is not the fraudulent biblical exegesis or even the lie about the actual recipient of taxpayer wealth. Rather, it is the assumption by a civil official of religious authority at all: the presumption of the authority and power of God by a civil servant, to call religious authority to support their civil authority.

    There is the big evil of the day. When a religious opinion is a criminal offense, Katie bar the door.

    Civil and religious authority are in different hands or they are monstrous tools of oppression which will precipitate effective revolt.

    Every “progressive” claims to embody both civil and religious authority. The religious authority they claim is a worship of some aspect of nature — ultimately themselves — in some form or another. Every progressive is a tyrant.

  3. Starless permalink
    05 May 2014 @ 00:26 00:26

    “I think it’s a colossal waste of time,” said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.”

    A United States ambassador was assassinated and the only people who have paid a price for it have been Navy SEALS and some nobody who made a bad YouTube video. We know where the Democrats’ priorities lie.

    And where is the gay community? Why are they not as hopping mad that their government has not brought the murderers of a high-level gay man to justice as they were that some guy in Silicon Valley gave $1000 to a political cause?

    • thecampofthesaints permalink
      05 May 2014 @ 07:29 07:29

      Oooo…damn good point. Where are the homosexuals?

      On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 12:26 AM, The Camp Of The Saints wrote:

      >

      • Starless permalink
        06 May 2014 @ 07:32 07:32

        Gay activists have been going on and on and on (and on) about Matthew Shepard for over 15 years. They have, in fact, constructed an entire industry around him which has allowed people like Dan Savage to make a comfortable living. But Chris Stevens? He wasn’t killed by supposed rednecks, and the “gay community” must protect The Precious, so I guess he gets the “meh” treatment.

        • thecampofthesaints permalink
          06 May 2014 @ 08:26 08:26

          And, of course, we’ve learned [from a homosexual reporter, no less] that the whole story built around the Shepard Murder was a lie.

          As to Mr. Stevens: well…he had to be sacrificed for the ‘greater good’ of The Cause.

          On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:32 AM, The Camp Of The Saints wrote:

          >

        • Starless permalink
          06 May 2014 @ 13:14 13:14

          In the Shepard case, I have always asked a simple question: what is more plausible, that someone would kill over a drug deal gone bad or over a made-up psychological condition called “gay panic”? I also try to remind people that it’s no less tragic if someone is tortured and murdered over drugs than over being gay. Though there doesn’t seem to be much interest in either of those arguments.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: