Daily Archives: February 1, 2017
I have read many a beautiful article from “Sundance” at the Conservative Treehouse (and I will always be grateful to him for the most intelligent guide and preparation to the November election I could find anywhere). But this here must be the best of them all. I invite you to not only read this passionate article in its entirety, but to make of this site a favourite of yours.
In days like this (after the nomination of Judge Gorsuch has been announced) I think with particular terror, and a very strong gratitude towards up above, to what would have happened if Hitlery had won.
It is not only that Scalia would have been replaced by some trannie liberal, a catastrophe in itself. It is very likely that Judge Ginsburg would now be resigning, too; preparing the ground for a double whammy of biblical proportions and aliberal domination of the Suprme Court for decades to come (the Astonishingly Ugly Dyke is merely 57!). Nor would a Senate majority polluted by RINOs have helped much, without the strong backing of a fiercely combative conservative President threatening annihilation of the Judases, and of a now victorious sane electorate ready to make every vote in the Senate count.
If Hitlery had won, we would now not be staring at a precipice, but plunging into it.
This is why I will never forget, nor forgive, all those Sanctimonious Judases of the #NeverTrump sort, who were perfectly willing to send the country (and with it, likely the West) to the dogs in order to show us how virtuous they are.
They chose to play Hitlery’s game then, they will be branded as Hitlery’s accomplices now. And no, I don’t care a straw if they are now applauding the candidate they have made everything possible to… make impossible. It is known that victory has many fathers.
Victory has also many bastards; and such they will remain.
I refuse I do not say to accept, but even to acknowledge the approval of these people to all the achievements with which Trump will bless his country in the next eight years. Their job now is to shut up, publicly repent, accept that they are called bastards and traitors (which is what they are, even if repentant), and hope to make for themselves, in many years of militancy, a new virginity.
But please, spare me the approval of oily opportunists ready to run to the help of the winner after they have done everything they could to plunge the country in its gravest crisis ever; condemning a generation of their own fellow citizen, and their very children, to the “fundamental transformation” Obama & Hitlery would have inflicted on them all.
They are no less Judases now than they were then. The only difference is that they have lost, and are now trying to recycle themselves as winners.
Judases, traitors and bastards now, just as in the first day of the #Never Trump hash tag.
We will not forget, and we will not forgive. Never again should it be allowed to this kind of people to betray their own side and hope to get away with it after the election.
Let this be an education for future political battles. It shall never happen again that such Judases think they can say “I told you so” if their side loses, and “we have won” if their side wins.
Traitors deserve to be spit in the face whether you win or lose after their treason.
There is a kind of Catholic Bishop and priest I dislike – and despise – very keenly. They are the “I am with you” fake Catholic priests, who agree with truth in that feeble “don’t get me wrong” way and then proceed to throw so many bones to the other side that you wonder what the heck they have going on in their brain.
The blogger priest ranting at orthodox Catholics at the non-catholic blogging channel is one of those. The bishop who plays with denial of hell is another one.
The latter has now given an interview in which he, once again, shows his true (false) colours. He does not openly condemns the Church on sexual perversion, but then again he does, stating that if any priest does not precede his statement of Catholic faith with feel-good waffle according to his own precious wisdom, then the priest in question is “disordered”.
Notice the double whammy here: he accuses priests in the very same strong terms with which the Church condemns perversion, even as he downplays the very strength of the accusation he makes.
You see, if a priest can be “disordered” in the same way a pervert is, perversion can’t be so bad after all, can it now? But “don’t get him wrong”, the man “agrees with you” in full on what the Church say, right?
There is much more wrong that the man says in the interview, but I don’t have the time. What is clear here is that the man is frantically padding down the stream of FrancisChurch, or I should say that he is frantically licking all the boots he can to advance his career.
The Bishop shouldn’t be worried. His mixture of fake orthodoxy and authentic subversion make of him a perfect candidate for a red hat one day; and he is young, he can wait. The important thing is to never stop exercising that tongue, and reward can’t be too far away.