How can this FHA fee change not be considered a tax? If it is a tax, then that can only be levied by Congress. This matter is a perfect example, perhaps THE perfect example, of administrative tyranny.
I'm in my late 50's. I get it. I think those of us that watched the hippies while we were young, get it. Many of the hippies that are still with us, don't. Many are encouraging the movement as are many of their grandchildren. Prayer is key to defeating the enemy.
We are living out Nietzsche's madman speech. Unchained from God, we have lost our bearings and are, unbelievably, even asserting that some women have penises. God help us.
There are lots of examples of the situation of older people, from a more settled, politically and culturally, time being caught off guard when a demagogic vanguard emerges and radicalizes society. Athens in the late 400s B.C. for one.
I think /inversion/ is one of the most important words and concepts to understand in this war. It is the surest way to identify the enemy. Once you start looking for it, it is everywhere.
Evil, evil, evil, for sure. Yet I was recently told by an earnest and mature believer that a discussion I had with unbelievers and which they were upset with me, was foolish because I made them upset and it wasn't about the gospel. Wouldn't that even apply to that excellent transcript? That is, Tucker wasn't (and doesn't) preaching the gospel and so it was a foolish way to offend dead people who need to hear about a Savior? If this response is representative of what the church thinks in general, and I think it is, then what is even the point of noticing these are evil times like Tucker does? Everything and everyone is a nail, and we hammer in the morning and hammer in the evening, and all around the world.
Polite, half-hearted "conservative" disagreement that defends what progressives were promoting five years ago is fine. Intelligent, courageous refutation of the latest elitist fads must be destroyed.
This post is off-Tucker-topic, but maybe not that much off in spirit because I really like what he said in an hour-long interview with Mark Steyn a couple of years ago (I actually never saw him on Fox.) What do you think of this idea, you add a regular feature answering questions about disconnected thoughts that are related to each other? Instead of Dear Abby, it could be, "Dear CT."
Wait, I just realized, CT is TC in reverse. Are you Tucker Carlson?
Here would be my question: Dear CT, can you help me to connect the aversion of my church to discuss vaccine injuries and damage due to the evil teachings of nearby public schools, both of which impact the least of these, and the same church being a supporter and womb for a classical school?
It's as if they value truth and are repelled by it too. My partial guees of an answer would be that there is a schism, so my premise is faulty because it's two separate groups of people being described with the word, "church.". I am understanding of a pastor responding, "hey, I do this because I want to see unbelievers saved and believers built up. I prepare sermons, administer weddings and funerals. Now you want to hear me weigh in about a spike protein and whether a rounded, man-made spike is unwise for young people. Um, no."
This ties into your several posts about science and tyranny of expertise. We turn the topic over to the experts and muzzle ourselves in a Victorian show of restraint and manners, but what of our minds, which are being proactively developed in classical schools? We turn our minds to mush on matters of the day, but strengthen them in regard to history and thinking skills. So in a show of manners, we don't preserve kids (ie, being salty) and we don't bring clarity (ie, being light about calling out what specific schools are specifically promoting). It's almost always papered over by a phrase I'm starting to develop a reaction to, "it's best to be safe." Okay, so if there isn't a scientific smoking gun for vaccine injury from a mainstream source, and if some kids come out of public schools with their faith intact, that means it's too difficult? Discussion of such is divisive and each person should just do whatever they think right? How is that using our minds or being salty? I think I am missing something obvious.
Pray we must.
How can this FHA fee change not be considered a tax? If it is a tax, then that can only be levied by Congress. This matter is a perfect example, perhaps THE perfect example, of administrative tyranny.
I'm in my late 50's. I get it. I think those of us that watched the hippies while we were young, get it. Many of the hippies that are still with us, don't. Many are encouraging the movement as are many of their grandchildren. Prayer is key to defeating the enemy.
On a positive note, recoiling in the face of this all-surrounding evil, people are finding their way to God. Here's a great video of one man's story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6etpmQUc2M&t=1364s
We are living out Nietzsche's madman speech. Unchained from God, we have lost our bearings and are, unbelievably, even asserting that some women have penises. God help us.
There are lots of examples of the situation of older people, from a more settled, politically and culturally, time being caught off guard when a demagogic vanguard emerges and radicalizes society. Athens in the late 400s B.C. for one.
"Evil loves inversion."
I think /inversion/ is one of the most important words and concepts to understand in this war. It is the surest way to identify the enemy. Once you start looking for it, it is everywhere.
Evil, evil, evil, for sure. Yet I was recently told by an earnest and mature believer that a discussion I had with unbelievers and which they were upset with me, was foolish because I made them upset and it wasn't about the gospel. Wouldn't that even apply to that excellent transcript? That is, Tucker wasn't (and doesn't) preaching the gospel and so it was a foolish way to offend dead people who need to hear about a Savior? If this response is representative of what the church thinks in general, and I think it is, then what is even the point of noticing these are evil times like Tucker does? Everything and everyone is a nail, and we hammer in the morning and hammer in the evening, and all around the world.
And...this just happened https://palexander.substack.com/p/breaking-tucker-carlson-out-at-fox?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=579356&post_id=116970726&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
I always suspected Murdoch was one of his servants on earth...
Polite, half-hearted "conservative" disagreement that defends what progressives were promoting five years ago is fine. Intelligent, courageous refutation of the latest elitist fads must be destroyed.
This post is off-Tucker-topic, but maybe not that much off in spirit because I really like what he said in an hour-long interview with Mark Steyn a couple of years ago (I actually never saw him on Fox.) What do you think of this idea, you add a regular feature answering questions about disconnected thoughts that are related to each other? Instead of Dear Abby, it could be, "Dear CT."
Wait, I just realized, CT is TC in reverse. Are you Tucker Carlson?
Here would be my question: Dear CT, can you help me to connect the aversion of my church to discuss vaccine injuries and damage due to the evil teachings of nearby public schools, both of which impact the least of these, and the same church being a supporter and womb for a classical school?
It's as if they value truth and are repelled by it too. My partial guees of an answer would be that there is a schism, so my premise is faulty because it's two separate groups of people being described with the word, "church.". I am understanding of a pastor responding, "hey, I do this because I want to see unbelievers saved and believers built up. I prepare sermons, administer weddings and funerals. Now you want to hear me weigh in about a spike protein and whether a rounded, man-made spike is unwise for young people. Um, no."
This ties into your several posts about science and tyranny of expertise. We turn the topic over to the experts and muzzle ourselves in a Victorian show of restraint and manners, but what of our minds, which are being proactively developed in classical schools? We turn our minds to mush on matters of the day, but strengthen them in regard to history and thinking skills. So in a show of manners, we don't preserve kids (ie, being salty) and we don't bring clarity (ie, being light about calling out what specific schools are specifically promoting). It's almost always papered over by a phrase I'm starting to develop a reaction to, "it's best to be safe." Okay, so if there isn't a scientific smoking gun for vaccine injury from a mainstream source, and if some kids come out of public schools with their faith intact, that means it's too difficult? Discussion of such is divisive and each person should just do whatever they think right? How is that using our minds or being salty? I think I am missing something obvious.