Pretty sure some lying is ok with God. Depends on the circumstances. Suppose you were spying on the Nazis or the communists. Your whole existence there is a lie, but it's a GOOD lie. I doubt God would condemn you for it.
This reminds me of the common misrepresentation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", which CLEARLY means "Thou shalt not murder."
Besides, the "U.S." government is the biggest liar around. They lie to the public when they don't even need to, out of principle, for fun, because they can, and to set a good example. They LIVE to lie and gaslight. If they never tell the truth, who expects otherwise?
Yep, the good days. Seemed so much more hopeful then.
Sadly, conservative talking heads did not take (or take now) the slightest responsibility for implementing what they preach. In the last 33 years I've only heard 2 of them do a show from a campaign HQ to show folks how important organization & voluntarism is. Just one show each. One was Roger Hedgecock, who knew the importance of campaigns because he'd been elected mayor of San Diego.
Rush couldn't be bothered to even give out names and websites of conservatives challenging RINOs, let alone interview them. The inconvenience of focus, organization, voluntarism & sacrifice of time & money, which actually could've saved the USA, was for *others* to do, without the slightest assist from him. He wasn't "interested" in that. The little people's main duty was listening 3 hrs/day. By the mid-1990s, conservative talking heads owned talk radio, nearly 100%. They could've easily purged the GOP of RINOs by introducing viable challengers and telling folks how important it is to volunteer, donate, even organize. Hell, a few mins an hour would've done it.
Agendas do not implement themselves by listening to talking heads preach. The left understand this. The right does not. So here we are. Screwed.
Ann, your legal expertise is always wonderful for clearing the acrid smoke of nonsense and hysteria out of a room.
One naturally wonders, however...in this Dark Age when the law doesn't appear to matter at all when politics are involved...and especially when those hostile to the Left are involved...will it be enough that no law is being broken and no crime committed?
I love America like the stars love the sky, as I know you do.
The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights have guided us so well for centuries.
But I don't think the Framers considered a Government that is so openly hostile to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. When the President is an obviously senile dementia patient and all important decisions are being made by faceless, unaccountable thugs in the shadows...do we still have a chance?
"But I don't think the Framers considered a Government that is so openly hostile to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. "
The Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Amendment would offer a dispute to that claim.
The nation is at the point now of answering the question, 'if you can keep it.'
I continue to hope to see thousands of Tim McVeighs and Marvin Heemeyers exact a measure of revenge at the pols and bureaucrats who act with impunity.
[side note; I am currently listening to the audiobook of Killing Jesus, and O Reilly recounts the Romans use of crucifixion not only as punishment but deterrent.... Hmmmmm....the government and Justice Department are fond of using lawfare to deter people from supporting Trump or representing him in a lawyerly capacity. Would there be a similar deterrent effect if a few politicians or bureaucrats or LEOs were hung up on crosses....? It might be worth a try to find out. Over their heads, where Jesus's cross read INRI, there could be a notation to the effect of 'its not much fun when the rabbit's got the gun'].
True. Speaking of Romans... Leftist-Statist-Ignorant "Christian" preachers have distorted the context of Romans 13 & 1 Peter 2, rendering conservative Christians powerless, authority worshipers who think it's their "Christian" duty to OBEY all laws, decrees, orders & enforcers, however subversive, tyrannical, unconscionable & unconstitutional.
If American Christians had bought that misrep in 1775, there would've been no American Revolution.
Conservative Protestants will benefit from Jonathan Mayhew's great 1750 sermon/discourse against unlimited submission to "authority". John Adam's literally said "everyone" in the colonies read it and that it was critical for the revolution.
No we don't have a chance. When Bush lulled the nation to sleep after Clinton's betrayal of the USA, and then the so called 'awakening under Obama, there is no way the level of corruption achieved during that time, can be reversed. The Fat Lady is singing the last verse.
Succinctly and entertainingly written as usual, Ann. But, not wanting to get too far off topic, the claim that Trump lied fails both subjectively and objectively. For a lie to exist, the supposed liar must say something that is both false AND believed to be false by the speaker.
On the subjective level, consider that at the time, while there were several important figures in Trumps orbit that were telling him that he legitimately lost, others – such as Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and the more scholarly Peter Navarro – were telling him the opposite. At least one close observer (with likely more to follow) has come forward to state that it was Trump’s earnest, if not obsessive, belief that he had been defrauded – regardless of the truth value of that belief.
On the objective level, once we dispense with the red herrings, there remain credible claims of invalid ballots being cast, especially with regard to mail-in ballot signature-matching. Even if every claim of election fraud is eventually shown to be false, it would not have been an unreasonable position to hold that fraud did exist with the information available in Jan 2021.
"For a lie to exist, the supposed liar must say something that is both false AND believed to be false by the speaker."
You mean something like 'if you like your Dr you can keep your Dr' ?
The new Jack Smith standard of law must be kept in place at least until Bill Clinton is in jail for 'I did not have sex with that woman,' Bush is in jail for 'mission accomplished', Comey is in jail for 'I don't recall,' and Obama is hanging from a cross for the aforementioned lie.
Ann has just said it all concisely and succinctly. There is no There there.
But that's not the point of it all. The point is to keep Trump in the news everyday, and get him to become the Republican candidate, so that the Dems can beat him like a drum in the general election. And the stupid Republicans are walking into the punch.
Ron DeSantis is the obvious and only option for the Republicans, but they for some reason would rather step on their own dick than elect the obvious choice. I don't know who I hate more, the Republicans or the Democrats. . . Okay, it's the Democrats, but only because they hate us so much.
And that hate will be focused on DeSantis just as fiercely as it is on Trump should DeSantis somehow get the nomination. For starters, without even getting in to his background or policies, he might be indicted in DC for inciting violence against "Our Democracy":
For the kind of overwhelming opposition any constitutional or nationalist candidate might face, see what the Uniparty globalists admit to doing in 2020:
Speaking of stepping on one's dick (and even John Holmes couldn't do it), seems DeSantis just did. Ann says abortion is a losing issue for Republicans. But DeSantis just passed a law banning abortion after six weeks. My wife voted for DeSantis twice for governor, hates Trump, but now doesn't want DeSantis for president either.
"The point is to keep Trump in the news everyday, and get him to become the Republican candidate, so that the Dems can beat him like a drum in the general election."
Won't matter with a DC jury and the J6 hangin' judge. Trump must know all his trial's will result in convictions. The only question is will Trump be remanded to custody while awaiting appeal. Moreover, will Secret Service Agents be assigned to Federal Prison or will tax dollars be used to construct a small prison at Fort Knox for Trump. If I were him I would flee the country and attempt to get political asylum in a neutral country.
Great point Miss Ann but a galactic flaw in your logic-->It is based on a long ago abandoned western system of rights and laws all of which operated under the balanced scales of Lady Liberty.
Just like the “new economy” or the “new morals”, the Third World newborn formerly known as the United States is operating under a Little Red Book legal system...think Mao, the Cultural Revolution and roaming gangs of underage justice enforcers executing the edicts of clueless incontinent despots sitting in their urine-soaked thrones.
Giving up was never implied. What was implied was the true current state of the Union. From this reality we fight to the last breath. And since I've been realistically preparing for this, I have a real plan that will cause the most resistance, and several successes along the way. But make no mistake, the battle will be lost because the entire global effort will be too much for true constitutional patriots to prevail.
I can picture Ann saying this to Hannity while he stares in confusion off into the distance wondering why Ronna hasn’t given him a talking point for it.
An editorial in the conservative magazine National Review argues that while the facts in the indictment prove Trump’s unfitness to be president, the case is political and shouldn’t stand absent proof that Trump knew his claims about a stolen election were false, asserting that “hyperbole and even worse are protected political speech.”
The indictment stresses that such claims are indeed protected. Trump is being charged for actions, not speech — specifically, multiple schemes to overturn the election results by pressuring public officials to falsify results. Those schemes culminated in an effort to bully then-Vice President Mike Pence into refusing to certify the votes in key states — and in the Jan. 6 riot whose participants had been whipped up by Trump’s calls for Pence to “do the right thing.”
The defense to this is essentially that the man who wants a new term as president of the United States is not guilty of grave crimes at the end of his first term because he is delusional. The irony is off the charts. But that aside, false beliefs generally do not excuse criminal actions. If a town mayor claims he’s the real heir to a deceased local millionaire’s luxury mansion, that’s free speech. If he tries to uses his office to coerce other public officials or employees into invalidating the millionaire’s will or letting him take over the house, that’s a crime even if he’s persuaded himself otherwise.
Ann, you in from of a silent classroom full of 40 quivering new federal government employees on their first day of employment presenting the mandatory 3 day session on ‘ lying is not a crime but it will get you fired’.
You, with the pointer slapping the palm of your hand in a slow deadly rhythm. ‘ I’ll be with you for the next 4 hours, listen closely and don’t move’.
Lying gets you in trouble with God, not the Government.
Unless the government thinks it’s God.
Pretty sure some lying is ok with God. Depends on the circumstances. Suppose you were spying on the Nazis or the communists. Your whole existence there is a lie, but it's a GOOD lie. I doubt God would condemn you for it.
This reminds me of the common misrepresentation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", which CLEARLY means "Thou shalt not murder."
Besides, the "U.S." government is the biggest liar around. They lie to the public when they don't even need to, out of principle, for fun, because they can, and to set a good example. They LIVE to lie and gaslight. If they never tell the truth, who expects otherwise?
"This reminds me of the common misrepresentation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", which CLEARLY means "Thou shalt not murder.""
back in my cab driving days I would listen from 8 - 11 to Dr Laura and that was one of the things I remember most was her mentioning that distinction.
Those were good days; I would listen to Jason Lewis out of Minneapolis from 5-8, then Dr Laura from 8-11, then the rebroadcast of Rush from 11-2. :-)
Yep, the good days. Seemed so much more hopeful then.
Sadly, conservative talking heads did not take (or take now) the slightest responsibility for implementing what they preach. In the last 33 years I've only heard 2 of them do a show from a campaign HQ to show folks how important organization & voluntarism is. Just one show each. One was Roger Hedgecock, who knew the importance of campaigns because he'd been elected mayor of San Diego.
Rush couldn't be bothered to even give out names and websites of conservatives challenging RINOs, let alone interview them. The inconvenience of focus, organization, voluntarism & sacrifice of time & money, which actually could've saved the USA, was for *others* to do, without the slightest assist from him. He wasn't "interested" in that. The little people's main duty was listening 3 hrs/day. By the mid-1990s, conservative talking heads owned talk radio, nearly 100%. They could've easily purged the GOP of RINOs by introducing viable challengers and telling folks how important it is to volunteer, donate, even organize. Hell, a few mins an hour would've done it.
Agendas do not implement themselves by listening to talking heads preach. The left understand this. The right does not. So here we are. Screwed.
Ann, your legal expertise is always wonderful for clearing the acrid smoke of nonsense and hysteria out of a room.
One naturally wonders, however...in this Dark Age when the law doesn't appear to matter at all when politics are involved...and especially when those hostile to the Left are involved...will it be enough that no law is being broken and no crime committed?
I love America like the stars love the sky, as I know you do.
The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights have guided us so well for centuries.
But I don't think the Framers considered a Government that is so openly hostile to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. When the President is an obviously senile dementia patient and all important decisions are being made by faceless, unaccountable thugs in the shadows...do we still have a chance?
"But I don't think the Framers considered a Government that is so openly hostile to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. "
The Declaration of Independence and the 2nd Amendment would offer a dispute to that claim.
The nation is at the point now of answering the question, 'if you can keep it.'
I continue to hope to see thousands of Tim McVeighs and Marvin Heemeyers exact a measure of revenge at the pols and bureaucrats who act with impunity.
[side note; I am currently listening to the audiobook of Killing Jesus, and O Reilly recounts the Romans use of crucifixion not only as punishment but deterrent.... Hmmmmm....the government and Justice Department are fond of using lawfare to deter people from supporting Trump or representing him in a lawyerly capacity. Would there be a similar deterrent effect if a few politicians or bureaucrats or LEOs were hung up on crosses....? It might be worth a try to find out. Over their heads, where Jesus's cross read INRI, there could be a notation to the effect of 'its not much fun when the rabbit's got the gun'].
True. Speaking of Romans... Leftist-Statist-Ignorant "Christian" preachers have distorted the context of Romans 13 & 1 Peter 2, rendering conservative Christians powerless, authority worshipers who think it's their "Christian" duty to OBEY all laws, decrees, orders & enforcers, however subversive, tyrannical, unconscionable & unconstitutional.
If American Christians had bought that misrep in 1775, there would've been no American Revolution.
Conservative Protestants will benefit from Jonathan Mayhew's great 1750 sermon/discourse against unlimited submission to "authority". John Adam's literally said "everyone" in the colonies read it and that it was critical for the revolution.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Pulpit-of-the-American-Revolution-.pdf starting on p55
Conservative Catholics will benefit from the good Archbishop Viganò's "Viganò Tape #6", same topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp63mj5nNSc
No we don't have a chance. When Bush lulled the nation to sleep after Clinton's betrayal of the USA, and then the so called 'awakening under Obama, there is no way the level of corruption achieved during that time, can be reversed. The Fat Lady is singing the last verse.
So, give up?
Succinctly and entertainingly written as usual, Ann. But, not wanting to get too far off topic, the claim that Trump lied fails both subjectively and objectively. For a lie to exist, the supposed liar must say something that is both false AND believed to be false by the speaker.
On the subjective level, consider that at the time, while there were several important figures in Trumps orbit that were telling him that he legitimately lost, others – such as Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and the more scholarly Peter Navarro – were telling him the opposite. At least one close observer (with likely more to follow) has come forward to state that it was Trump’s earnest, if not obsessive, belief that he had been defrauded – regardless of the truth value of that belief.
On the objective level, once we dispense with the red herrings, there remain credible claims of invalid ballots being cast, especially with regard to mail-in ballot signature-matching. Even if every claim of election fraud is eventually shown to be false, it would not have been an unreasonable position to hold that fraud did exist with the information available in Jan 2021.
"For a lie to exist, the supposed liar must say something that is both false AND believed to be false by the speaker."
You mean something like 'if you like your Dr you can keep your Dr' ?
The new Jack Smith standard of law must be kept in place at least until Bill Clinton is in jail for 'I did not have sex with that woman,' Bush is in jail for 'mission accomplished', Comey is in jail for 'I don't recall,' and Obama is hanging from a cross for the aforementioned lie.
Ann has just said it all concisely and succinctly. There is no There there.
But that's not the point of it all. The point is to keep Trump in the news everyday, and get him to become the Republican candidate, so that the Dems can beat him like a drum in the general election. And the stupid Republicans are walking into the punch.
Ron DeSantis is the obvious and only option for the Republicans, but they for some reason would rather step on their own dick than elect the obvious choice. I don't know who I hate more, the Republicans or the Democrats. . . Okay, it's the Democrats, but only because they hate us so much.
And that hate will be focused on DeSantis just as fiercely as it is on Trump should DeSantis somehow get the nomination. For starters, without even getting in to his background or policies, he might be indicted in DC for inciting violence against "Our Democracy":
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ron-desantis-says-he-will-start-slitting-throats-on-day-one-in-executive-branch/ar-AA1eKK24
For the kind of overwhelming opposition any constitutional or nationalist candidate might face, see what the Uniparty globalists admit to doing in 2020:
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
Speaking of stepping on one's dick (and even John Holmes couldn't do it), seems DeSantis just did. Ann says abortion is a losing issue for Republicans. But DeSantis just passed a law banning abortion after six weeks. My wife voted for DeSantis twice for governor, hates Trump, but now doesn't want DeSantis for president either.
"The point is to keep Trump in the news everyday, and get him to become the Republican candidate, so that the Dems can beat him like a drum in the general election."
exactly like they did in 2015.
Won't matter with a DC jury and the J6 hangin' judge. Trump must know all his trial's will result in convictions. The only question is will Trump be remanded to custody while awaiting appeal. Moreover, will Secret Service Agents be assigned to Federal Prison or will tax dollars be used to construct a small prison at Fort Knox for Trump. If I were him I would flee the country and attempt to get political asylum in a neutral country.
Great point Miss Ann but a galactic flaw in your logic-->It is based on a long ago abandoned western system of rights and laws all of which operated under the balanced scales of Lady Liberty.
Just like the “new economy” or the “new morals”, the Third World newborn formerly known as the United States is operating under a Little Red Book legal system...think Mao, the Cultural Revolution and roaming gangs of underage justice enforcers executing the edicts of clueless incontinent despots sitting in their urine-soaked thrones.
that isn't urine.....
[didn't Xiden have to do a change of clothes at the Vatican....?]
I believe that was during an audience with the late and very great Queen Elizabeth II. 🤣
it was probably at both places.
It was, in front of Camilla and the Pope, methinks Jill would have had the foresight to dress him properly in depends those days?
Giving up was never implied. What was implied was the true current state of the Union. From this reality we fight to the last breath. And since I've been realistically preparing for this, I have a real plan that will cause the most resistance, and several successes along the way. But make no mistake, the battle will be lost because the entire global effort will be too much for true constitutional patriots to prevail.
Thanks for asking?
I can picture Ann saying this to Hannity while he stares in confusion off into the distance wondering why Ronna hasn’t given him a talking point for it.
Answer: Getting people to believe his lie (to “defraud the United States,” “obstruct an official proceeding,” and “against rights”).
So, do I understand this point correctly? The crime of fraud is being committed by the MSM and the prosecution? THX
Great point Ann.
https://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/donald-trump-indictment-jan-6-i0un1yec
From Cathy Young's Editorial:
An editorial in the conservative magazine National Review argues that while the facts in the indictment prove Trump’s unfitness to be president, the case is political and shouldn’t stand absent proof that Trump knew his claims about a stolen election were false, asserting that “hyperbole and even worse are protected political speech.”
The indictment stresses that such claims are indeed protected. Trump is being charged for actions, not speech — specifically, multiple schemes to overturn the election results by pressuring public officials to falsify results. Those schemes culminated in an effort to bully then-Vice President Mike Pence into refusing to certify the votes in key states — and in the Jan. 6 riot whose participants had been whipped up by Trump’s calls for Pence to “do the right thing.”
The defense to this is essentially that the man who wants a new term as president of the United States is not guilty of grave crimes at the end of his first term because he is delusional. The irony is off the charts. But that aside, false beliefs generally do not excuse criminal actions. If a town mayor claims he’s the real heir to a deceased local millionaire’s luxury mansion, that’s free speech. If he tries to uses his office to coerce other public officials or employees into invalidating the millionaire’s will or letting him take over the house, that’s a crime even if he’s persuaded himself otherwise.
Ann, you in from of a silent classroom full of 40 quivering new federal government employees on their first day of employment presenting the mandatory 3 day session on ‘ lying is not a crime but it will get you fired’.
You, with the pointer slapping the palm of your hand in a slow deadly rhythm. ‘ I’ll be with you for the next 4 hours, listen closely and don’t move’.
Thank you for telling the truth Ann!