The video leaves out post-modernist "philosophy". But what he has here is plenty enough. Bottom line: Don't leave your brain at the door. The "collective" wants you to be stupid, on the premise that stupidity is power, I suppose. No it isn't. A mob is really just a helpless beast. A single man can stop a mob. Mark Twain wrote about it ( Colonel Sherburn's address). Should you trust what Mark Twain said? Or what anybody says? If yes, then why?
You've got liberals accusing others of fascism, but act more fascist than Hitler's Brownshirts. The Brownshirts were a thougtless mob. Is that what you truly want?
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Friday, September 11, 2026
Election "bomb" in Germany
Wait a minute! Didn't the UK do a thing called "Brexit"? What the heck is going on over there???
Talarico Pastor: ‘People in This Church’ Wish Would-Be Trump Assassin ‘Had Been More Successful’
Talarico is a fake. He's as fake as fake can be. It isn't any Chrisitan church to say that they're agnostic or atheistic. What kind of people would say that? What kind of pastor would say that? Certainly not any Christian one.
Incidentally, he promotes murder for what exactly? Differences of opinion? These Talafreakos claim to be caring people, but they advocate cold-blooded murder. Talarico is a liar and a fake. That is true of all commies. The whole idea is to defraud on the road to power. They are insane.
Update:
Get a load of this!
Gotta love it...
Thursday, September 10, 2026
Who is Mark, as the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament
Note: I became curious about this, so I asked AI. Here's what it said:
**Mark the Evangelist** (also known as **John Mark**) is the traditional author of the **Gospel of Mark**, the shortest and earliest of the four New Testament Gospels. He was not one of the twelve Apostles but served as a companion to **Peter** and **Paul**, with early church tradition (such as the writings of Papias) asserting that his gospel recorded Peter’s eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life.
Key details about his identity and role include:
* **Biblical Identity**: Mentioned in the Book of Acts as the son of a woman named Mary whose house served as a gathering place for early Christians. He traveled with **Barnabas** and **Paul** on missionary journeys but initially left them, later reconciling and becoming a trusted associate of Paul in his later years.
* **Authorship Tradition**: While the Gospel itself is anonymous, early church fathers unanimously attributed it to Mark, describing him as Peter’s interpreter or scribe who wrote down Peter’s preaching, likely in **Rome** around **60–70 CE**.
* **Theological Focus**: Mark’s narrative emphasizes Jesus as the **Servant** and **Son of God**, focusing heavily on Jesus’ actions, miracles, and suffering rather than his teachings or genealogy, tailored for a **Gentile** audience, particularly Roman believers.
## Evidence Supporting Mark's Authorship
The evidence falls into two categories: **external** (early church tradition) and **internal** (clues within the text). The scholarly consensus is that the tradition is early and unanimous, though not beyond debate.
### External Evidence
The strongest evidence comes from a chain of early patristic witnesses:
- **Papias of Hierapolis** (c. 120 CE), preserved by Eusebius, is the earliest testimony: *"Mark, who became Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord."* This is the foundational claim that Mark was Peter's scribe.
- **Irenaeus of Lyons** (*Against Heresies* 3.1.1, c. 180 CE) confirms: *"after their death [Peter and Paul], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what was preached by Peter."*
- The **Muratorian Canon** (c. 170 CE), **Clement of Alexandria**, **Tertullian**, **Origen**, and **Jerome** all affirm the same attribution. The tradition is geographically widespread (Asia Minor, Rome, Alexandria, Lyons) and **unanimous** — no ancient source names a different author.
- **1 Peter 5:13** references "Mark my son" in Babylon (Rome), corroborating a close Peter–Mark relationship in the capital. - The earliest Greek manuscripts (e.g., P⁴⁵, 3rd century) carry the title "According to Mark."
### Internal Evidence (Textual Clues)
The Gospel itself is anonymous, but several features are *consistent* with the tradition:
- **Aramaic words glossed in Greek** (e.g., *Talitha kum* in 5:41, *Ephphatha* in 7:34, *Boanerges* in 3:17) — fitting for a bilingual interpreter mediating between Peter's Aramaic and a Greek-speaking audience.
- **Concise, rapid narrative style** with short sentences and the frequent use of *euthys* ("immediately") — consistent with a scribe capturing oral preaching rather than composing a literary work.
- **Explanations of Jewish customs** for Gentile readers (e.g., hand-washing in 7:3–4) — pointing to a non-Jewish, likely Roman, audience. - **References to people "known to you"** (Mark 15:21, Simon of Cyrene's sons Alexander and Rufus) — suggesting the author wrote to a community with personal connections to events described.
### Scholarly Caveats
- The attribution is **late** relative to composition: if Mark was written ~70 CE, Papias's testimony comes ~50 years later. - The Gospel **never names its author** internally. - Some critical scholars (e.g., Bart Ehrman) argue that earlier writers who quote Mark (like Justin Martyr, c. 150 CE) do **not** name its author, and that the first to clearly link "Mark" to *this specific text* is Irenaeus.
- Papias's description of Mark's account as "not in order" has led some to question whether he is referring to the canonical Gospel at all. - The author is best described by neutral scholarship as "a highly educated Greek-speaking Christian who lived outside Palestine" — a description that fits John Mark but is not exclusive to him.
In short: the evidence is **early, unanimous, and geographically broad**, but it rests on second- and third-century tradition rather than a first-century self-identification. Most scholars regard the tradition as **probable but not certain**.
## Mark and Peter: A Father-Son Relationship
Their relationship developed in stages, moving from acquaintance to deep spiritual kinship:
**Jerusalem (c. 44 CE).** The earliest point of contact is **Acts 12:12**, where Peter, having been miraculously freed from Herod's prison, goes directly to the house of **Mary**, Mark's mother — a known gathering place for the early Jerusalem church. This is where the relationship almost certainly began: Peter took refuge in Mark's family home.
**Rome (early 60s CE).** The relationship deepened when Mark accompanied Peter to Rome. There, Mark served as Peter's **interpreter** (*hermēneutēs*) — translating Peter's Aramaic preaching into Greek for a predominantly Gentile Roman audience. They were together during Peter's imprisonment in Rome.
**Spiritual Father and Son.** The clearest statement of their bond is **1 Peter 5:13**, where Peter, writing from "Babylon" (Rome), sends greetings through *"my son Mark."* This is not merely a formal title — it signals that Peter was Mark's spiritual father, likely the one who brought him to faith. The relationship is analogous to a parent and child in the faith.
**The Gospel as Peter's Memoir.** The tradition (Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and others) is that Mark **wrote down what Peter preached** about Jesus — effectively producing a written record of Peter's eyewitness testimony. Papias's key statement:
> *"Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter."*
**Internal traces in the Gospel.** Mark's Gospel is distinctive in its treatment of Peter: he is named **26 times** (far more than in the other Gospels relative to their length), his **denial of Jesus** is recounted in vivid detail (Mark 14:66–72), and his **failings** are emphasized — features consistent with Peter's own candid, self-deprecating testimony being the source.
In summary: Mark was **Peter's spiritual son, interpreter, and scribe** — a close companion in Rome who committed to writing what Peter had seen and heard from Jesus.
## Reliability of Papias's Account of Mark
The assessment is genuinely contested. Here's the landscape:
### Grounds for Trust
- **Early date.** Papias wrote c. 120–130 CE — within one generation of the events. He claims to have heard directly from "the Elder John" (a disciple of Jesus) and Aristion, placing him in the second generation after the apostles.
- **Unflattering details argue against fabrication.** Papias notes that Mark was *not* an eyewitness, that he wrote "not in order," and that he was merely Peter's interpreter. If someone were inventing a pedigree, they would attribute the Gospel to an apostle directly, not to a scribe who got the sequence wrong. - **No competing tradition.** No early source names a different author for this Gospel. The unanimity of the tradition (Papias → Irenaeus → Clement → Jerome) is notable.
- **Irenaeus's endorsement.** Irenaeus (c. 180) calls Papias "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp," vouching for his proximity to apostolic sources.
### Grounds for Doubt
- **Mediated and fragmentary transmission.** We have no original text. Everything survives in quotations by Eusebius (c. 325) and Irenaeus — a gap of 100–200 years. Eusebius, who calls Papias "a man of very little intelligence" (in the context of his millennialism), may have paraphrased or selected quotes to suit his own agenda.
- **Track record on other claims.** Papias's account of Judas's death is widely regarded as mythologized. His claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew contradicts our Greek Gospel. When his claims *can* be checked, they often fail. - **Third- or fourth-hand information.** Papias heard from "elders" who knew disciples — a chain of oral transmission, not direct observation. - **Identity of the text.** Some scholars question whether Papias is referring to *our* canonical Gospel of Mark at all, or to a different, now-lost work by someone named Mark.
- **Modern critical consensus.** As Mary Ann Tolbert puts it, the statement "should not be given much weight" — the Gospel is better explained by internal features (an anonymous, educated Greek-speaking author writing for a Gentile audience) than by the Petrine tradition.
### Where Scholarship Splits
| Position | Key proponents | Core claim | |----------|---------------|------------| | **Credible core** | Bauckham, Gundry, Carlson (2021) | The Petrine connection is early, specific, and resistant to fabrication; the unflattering details are a hallmark of truthfulness. | | **Probable but unproven** | Most mainstream NT scholarship | The tradition is early and unanimous, making Mark-as-author *likely*, but the Petrine source detail is not demonstrable and may be apologetic embellishment. | | **Unreliable** | Ehrman, Casey, Vridar contributors | Papias's other claims are wrong; the Petrine link is a later legend designed to give an anonymous Gospel apostolic authority. |
### Bottom Line
The **attribution to a person named Mark** is broadly accepted even by critical scholars — it is too early and too unanimous to dismiss. The **Petrine source detail** (that Mark wrote down *Peter's* preaching) is where the real dispute lies. It is plausible and consistent with the text, but it rests on a single early testimony filtered through later transmitters, and no first-century document independently confirms it. The honest summary: **probable, not proven.**
Comment:
Polycarp is mentioned in the text, so I asked ther following question:
who is polycarp
**Polycarp** (c. 69–155 AD) was a **bishop of Smyrna** and a pivotal **Apostolic Father** in early Christianity, renowned as a direct **disciple of the Apostle John**. He is celebrated for his steadfast defense of orthodox Christian teachings against **Gnosticism** and for preserving the apostolic traditions passed down from Jesus’s original followers.
His historical significance is defined by several key factors: * **Literary Contributions**: He is the author of the **Letter to the Philippians**, one of the earliest surviving Christian writings outside the New Testament, which heavily cites Pauline epistles and reinforces apostolic doctrine. * **Martyrdom**: At age 86, Polycarp was executed by the Roman Empire for refusing to renounce his faith; his **Martyrdom** is one of the earliest and most influential accounts of Christian martyrdom, noted for his miraculous preservation from burning before he was stabbed to death. * **Ecclesiastical Leadership**: He served as a bridge between the apostolic age and the patristic era, mentoring figures like **Irenaeus** and engaging in significant debates, such as the controversy over the date of Easter with the Bishop of Rome.
He is venerated as a **saint** in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican traditions, with his feast day observed on **February 23**, and he is recognized as the patron saint of those suffering from earaches and dysentery.
**Mark the Evangelist** (also known as **John Mark**) is the traditional author of the **Gospel of Mark**, the shortest and earliest of the four New Testament Gospels. He was not one of the twelve Apostles but served as a companion to **Peter** and **Paul**, with early church tradition (such as the writings of Papias) asserting that his gospel recorded Peter’s eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life.
Key details about his identity and role include:
* **Biblical Identity**: Mentioned in the Book of Acts as the son of a woman named Mary whose house served as a gathering place for early Christians. He traveled with **Barnabas** and **Paul** on missionary journeys but initially left them, later reconciling and becoming a trusted associate of Paul in his later years.
* **Authorship Tradition**: While the Gospel itself is anonymous, early church fathers unanimously attributed it to Mark, describing him as Peter’s interpreter or scribe who wrote down Peter’s preaching, likely in **Rome** around **60–70 CE**.
* **Theological Focus**: Mark’s narrative emphasizes Jesus as the **Servant** and **Son of God**, focusing heavily on Jesus’ actions, miracles, and suffering rather than his teachings or genealogy, tailored for a **Gentile** audience, particularly Roman believers.
## Evidence Supporting Mark's Authorship
The evidence falls into two categories: **external** (early church tradition) and **internal** (clues within the text). The scholarly consensus is that the tradition is early and unanimous, though not beyond debate.
### External Evidence
The strongest evidence comes from a chain of early patristic witnesses:
- **Papias of Hierapolis** (c. 120 CE), preserved by Eusebius, is the earliest testimony: *"Mark, who became Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered of the things said or done by the Lord."* This is the foundational claim that Mark was Peter's scribe.
- **Irenaeus of Lyons** (*Against Heresies* 3.1.1, c. 180 CE) confirms: *"after their death [Peter and Paul], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing what was preached by Peter."*
- The **Muratorian Canon** (c. 170 CE), **Clement of Alexandria**, **Tertullian**, **Origen**, and **Jerome** all affirm the same attribution. The tradition is geographically widespread (Asia Minor, Rome, Alexandria, Lyons) and **unanimous** — no ancient source names a different author.
- **1 Peter 5:13** references "Mark my son" in Babylon (Rome), corroborating a close Peter–Mark relationship in the capital. - The earliest Greek manuscripts (e.g., P⁴⁵, 3rd century) carry the title "According to Mark."
### Internal Evidence (Textual Clues)
The Gospel itself is anonymous, but several features are *consistent* with the tradition:
- **Aramaic words glossed in Greek** (e.g., *Talitha kum* in 5:41, *Ephphatha* in 7:34, *Boanerges* in 3:17) — fitting for a bilingual interpreter mediating between Peter's Aramaic and a Greek-speaking audience.
- **Concise, rapid narrative style** with short sentences and the frequent use of *euthys* ("immediately") — consistent with a scribe capturing oral preaching rather than composing a literary work.
- **Explanations of Jewish customs** for Gentile readers (e.g., hand-washing in 7:3–4) — pointing to a non-Jewish, likely Roman, audience. - **References to people "known to you"** (Mark 15:21, Simon of Cyrene's sons Alexander and Rufus) — suggesting the author wrote to a community with personal connections to events described.
### Scholarly Caveats
- The attribution is **late** relative to composition: if Mark was written ~70 CE, Papias's testimony comes ~50 years later. - The Gospel **never names its author** internally. - Some critical scholars (e.g., Bart Ehrman) argue that earlier writers who quote Mark (like Justin Martyr, c. 150 CE) do **not** name its author, and that the first to clearly link "Mark" to *this specific text* is Irenaeus.
- Papias's description of Mark's account as "not in order" has led some to question whether he is referring to the canonical Gospel at all. - The author is best described by neutral scholarship as "a highly educated Greek-speaking Christian who lived outside Palestine" — a description that fits John Mark but is not exclusive to him.
In short: the evidence is **early, unanimous, and geographically broad**, but it rests on second- and third-century tradition rather than a first-century self-identification. Most scholars regard the tradition as **probable but not certain**.
## Mark and Peter: A Father-Son Relationship
Their relationship developed in stages, moving from acquaintance to deep spiritual kinship:
**Jerusalem (c. 44 CE).** The earliest point of contact is **Acts 12:12**, where Peter, having been miraculously freed from Herod's prison, goes directly to the house of **Mary**, Mark's mother — a known gathering place for the early Jerusalem church. This is where the relationship almost certainly began: Peter took refuge in Mark's family home.
**Rome (early 60s CE).** The relationship deepened when Mark accompanied Peter to Rome. There, Mark served as Peter's **interpreter** (*hermēneutēs*) — translating Peter's Aramaic preaching into Greek for a predominantly Gentile Roman audience. They were together during Peter's imprisonment in Rome.
**Spiritual Father and Son.** The clearest statement of their bond is **1 Peter 5:13**, where Peter, writing from "Babylon" (Rome), sends greetings through *"my son Mark."* This is not merely a formal title — it signals that Peter was Mark's spiritual father, likely the one who brought him to faith. The relationship is analogous to a parent and child in the faith.
**The Gospel as Peter's Memoir.** The tradition (Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and others) is that Mark **wrote down what Peter preached** about Jesus — effectively producing a written record of Peter's eyewitness testimony. Papias's key statement:
> *"Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter."*
**Internal traces in the Gospel.** Mark's Gospel is distinctive in its treatment of Peter: he is named **26 times** (far more than in the other Gospels relative to their length), his **denial of Jesus** is recounted in vivid detail (Mark 14:66–72), and his **failings** are emphasized — features consistent with Peter's own candid, self-deprecating testimony being the source.
In summary: Mark was **Peter's spiritual son, interpreter, and scribe** — a close companion in Rome who committed to writing what Peter had seen and heard from Jesus.
## Reliability of Papias's Account of Mark
The assessment is genuinely contested. Here's the landscape:
### Grounds for Trust
- **Early date.** Papias wrote c. 120–130 CE — within one generation of the events. He claims to have heard directly from "the Elder John" (a disciple of Jesus) and Aristion, placing him in the second generation after the apostles.
- **Unflattering details argue against fabrication.** Papias notes that Mark was *not* an eyewitness, that he wrote "not in order," and that he was merely Peter's interpreter. If someone were inventing a pedigree, they would attribute the Gospel to an apostle directly, not to a scribe who got the sequence wrong. - **No competing tradition.** No early source names a different author for this Gospel. The unanimity of the tradition (Papias → Irenaeus → Clement → Jerome) is notable.
- **Irenaeus's endorsement.** Irenaeus (c. 180) calls Papias "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp," vouching for his proximity to apostolic sources.
### Grounds for Doubt
- **Mediated and fragmentary transmission.** We have no original text. Everything survives in quotations by Eusebius (c. 325) and Irenaeus — a gap of 100–200 years. Eusebius, who calls Papias "a man of very little intelligence" (in the context of his millennialism), may have paraphrased or selected quotes to suit his own agenda.
- **Track record on other claims.** Papias's account of Judas's death is widely regarded as mythologized. His claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew contradicts our Greek Gospel. When his claims *can* be checked, they often fail. - **Third- or fourth-hand information.** Papias heard from "elders" who knew disciples — a chain of oral transmission, not direct observation. - **Identity of the text.** Some scholars question whether Papias is referring to *our* canonical Gospel of Mark at all, or to a different, now-lost work by someone named Mark.
- **Modern critical consensus.** As Mary Ann Tolbert puts it, the statement "should not be given much weight" — the Gospel is better explained by internal features (an anonymous, educated Greek-speaking author writing for a Gentile audience) than by the Petrine tradition.
### Where Scholarship Splits
| Position | Key proponents | Core claim | |----------|---------------|------------| | **Credible core** | Bauckham, Gundry, Carlson (2021) | The Petrine connection is early, specific, and resistant to fabrication; the unflattering details are a hallmark of truthfulness. | | **Probable but unproven** | Most mainstream NT scholarship | The tradition is early and unanimous, making Mark-as-author *likely*, but the Petrine source detail is not demonstrable and may be apologetic embellishment. | | **Unreliable** | Ehrman, Casey, Vridar contributors | Papias's other claims are wrong; the Petrine link is a later legend designed to give an anonymous Gospel apostolic authority. |
### Bottom Line
The **attribution to a person named Mark** is broadly accepted even by critical scholars — it is too early and too unanimous to dismiss. The **Petrine source detail** (that Mark wrote down *Peter's* preaching) is where the real dispute lies. It is plausible and consistent with the text, but it rests on a single early testimony filtered through later transmitters, and no first-century document independently confirms it. The honest summary: **probable, not proven.**
Comment:
Polycarp is mentioned in the text, so I asked ther following question:
who is polycarp
**Polycarp** (c. 69–155 AD) was a **bishop of Smyrna** and a pivotal **Apostolic Father** in early Christianity, renowned as a direct **disciple of the Apostle John**. He is celebrated for his steadfast defense of orthodox Christian teachings against **Gnosticism** and for preserving the apostolic traditions passed down from Jesus’s original followers.
His historical significance is defined by several key factors: * **Literary Contributions**: He is the author of the **Letter to the Philippians**, one of the earliest surviving Christian writings outside the New Testament, which heavily cites Pauline epistles and reinforces apostolic doctrine. * **Martyrdom**: At age 86, Polycarp was executed by the Roman Empire for refusing to renounce his faith; his **Martyrdom** is one of the earliest and most influential accounts of Christian martyrdom, noted for his miraculous preservation from burning before he was stabbed to death. * **Ecclesiastical Leadership**: He served as a bridge between the apostolic age and the patristic era, mentoring figures like **Irenaeus** and engaging in significant debates, such as the controversy over the date of Easter with the Bishop of Rome.
He is venerated as a **saint** in the Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican traditions, with his feast day observed on **February 23**, and he is recognized as the patron saint of those suffering from earaches and dysentery.
Bongino show ep. 2592
Howdy, ya'll! Anyway, there's a midterm convention in Dallas. So Bongino is reporting on it and that's good. I regret to say that I wasn't in on it at all. The first part of the show, Bongino gives a tribute to Charlie Kirk. This is the first anniversary of the shooting. Once again, I wasn't in on the Charlie Kirk phenomenon. What I've heard is some pretty good things about him, so I regret not being aware of it.
Bongino warned about some possible glitches. It turns out that the Rumble stream would freeze from time-to-time. In order to get around those spots, I clicked on a button that may be a fast-forward button. Not sure what it is, but it worked. I think it goes to the next segment in the video. If your stream locks up, try that.
This part about Congressman Gill got my attention. I'm always thinking, what happens after Trump? Maybe it is this guy. Bongino says some good things about him. We'll see.
So here's the video jipped to the Rep. Gill segment. So whaddaya think???
Update awhile later:
Still watching the Bongino episode, and by golly-by-gosh there's another segment I want to Jip!
I'm jipping it here because it is an illustration of the effect of post-modernist way of "thinking". Indeed, it is appropriate to "thinking" in quotes there. Because it is an advocacy of NOT THINKING. It is the opposite of thinking. That's what post-modernism has done to our culture. It is the culture that will lead to our doom if we don't get on the stick and start challenging it.
It is the same as doomerism and black-pilling. It is the willful disregard of the truth in favor one's own pet point of view. One's point of view can be a wrong as wrong can be, but if you are honest about it, a good argument can change your mind. Well, why shouldn't it? If you are wrong, and somebody can SHOW it, why shouldn't you change your mind? It may help you avoid a BIG MISTAKE. Anyway, here's the segment. Note the language here. It is vitally important, or I wouldn't be jipping it.
Bongino is right
He says the black-pillers and the doomers are a problem.
I've just seen that for myself. There is a real problem here because they are these folks who keep saying things like "nothing is happening" and so forth.
Trump has an impressive list of good things that have happened during his watch. But the black-pillers and doomers focus on maybe one or two things that haven't gotten done as evidence that "nothing is going on".
Well, one or two things don't sway the balance against at least 25 things that HAVE been done.
Nor does it even begin to balance off what the commies will do if they get back into office. Every one of these black-pillers and doomers ought to be quizzed about what their preferences truly are. Do you prefer that the commies get into office and rig the elections to favor themselves FOREVER into power? Because that is what is in their plans... How do we know that? Because of what James Carville said. He said "don't run on it, just do it".( in reference to new liberal states in the Union and end of the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court) Then he added, "let them eat our dust".
So letting them win will guarantee that you cannot ever oppose them again. Is that what you truly want????
Regardless of what you want, that is exactly what you'll get.
Instead of that black pill, you need to take that red pill and see the reality. Unless you are truly a commie in disguise, the red pill will be what you need to make the right decision and vote against the commies. You don't have to vote for the GOP. The GOP ain't perfect, and don't I know it! Don't have to disregard the warts, but the warts gives you a choice, whereas the commies Won't!
Anybody who knows anything at all about how the commies operate KNOW I'M RIGHT.
And so is Bongino.
By the way, if you have any doubts about what Carville said, I asked AI and got this answer: Question:
Did James Carville say that he favors ending the filibuster, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states, and packing the Supreme Court?
Did James Carville say that he favors ending the filibuster, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states, and packing the Supreme Court?
Yes, James Carville has explicitly advocated for all three measures. In a November 2025 interview on Fox News, he stated he would "carve out" the filibuster for judicial nominations and statehood votes to implement his plans. He reiterated in April 2026 that if Democrats win the presidency and both chambers of Congress in 2028, they should **unilaterally grant statehood to Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico** and **expand the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 justices** on day one. Carville advised Democrats to keep these plans quiet during campaigns, saying, "Don't run on it. Don't talk about it. Just do it."
I've just seen that for myself. There is a real problem here because they are these folks who keep saying things like "nothing is happening" and so forth.
Trump has an impressive list of good things that have happened during his watch. But the black-pillers and doomers focus on maybe one or two things that haven't gotten done as evidence that "nothing is going on".
Well, one or two things don't sway the balance against at least 25 things that HAVE been done.
Nor does it even begin to balance off what the commies will do if they get back into office. Every one of these black-pillers and doomers ought to be quizzed about what their preferences truly are. Do you prefer that the commies get into office and rig the elections to favor themselves FOREVER into power? Because that is what is in their plans... How do we know that? Because of what James Carville said. He said "don't run on it, just do it".( in reference to new liberal states in the Union and end of the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court) Then he added, "let them eat our dust".
So letting them win will guarantee that you cannot ever oppose them again. Is that what you truly want????
Regardless of what you want, that is exactly what you'll get.
Instead of that black pill, you need to take that red pill and see the reality. Unless you are truly a commie in disguise, the red pill will be what you need to make the right decision and vote against the commies. You don't have to vote for the GOP. The GOP ain't perfect, and don't I know it! Don't have to disregard the warts, but the warts gives you a choice, whereas the commies Won't!
Anybody who knows anything at all about how the commies operate KNOW I'M RIGHT.
And so is Bongino.
By the way, if you have any doubts about what Carville said, I asked AI and got this answer: Question:
Did James Carville say that he favors ending the filibuster, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states, and packing the Supreme Court?
Did James Carville say that he favors ending the filibuster, adding DC and Puerto Rico as states, and packing the Supreme Court?
Yes, James Carville has explicitly advocated for all three measures. In a November 2025 interview on Fox News, he stated he would "carve out" the filibuster for judicial nominations and statehood votes to implement his plans. He reiterated in April 2026 that if Democrats win the presidency and both chambers of Congress in 2028, they should **unilaterally grant statehood to Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico** and **expand the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 justices** on day one. Carville advised Democrats to keep these plans quiet during campaigns, saying, "Don't run on it. Don't talk about it. Just do it."
Something fishy here
9/10/26:
Update:
Somebody is spreading FUD---Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Oil prices are being bid up. Rumors are being spread that Russia and China are aiding Iran. The specter of war spreading all over is bullhorned globally. Ask yourselves this: Cui bono? Who benefits? This is a fear campaign before a crucial election here in the USA. There needs to be an answer.
9/8/26:
Just a brief comment here about the oil prices.
Prices are near $100 a barrel again, and that doesn't make a lick of sense. If pricing was following supply and demand, then current prices seem too high to me. The reasons given sound like a load of bull, too.
If the oil flow is restored to what it was previously, then why the elevated prices?
Something here doesn't add up. That's all I want to say on that.
It has a bad smell to it. Where that smell is coming from is what we should be finding out about.
Update:
Somebody is spreading FUD---Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Oil prices are being bid up. Rumors are being spread that Russia and China are aiding Iran. The specter of war spreading all over is bullhorned globally. Ask yourselves this: Cui bono? Who benefits? This is a fear campaign before a crucial election here in the USA. There needs to be an answer.
9/8/26:
Just a brief comment here about the oil prices.
Prices are near $100 a barrel again, and that doesn't make a lick of sense. If pricing was following supply and demand, then current prices seem too high to me. The reasons given sound like a load of bull, too.
If the oil flow is restored to what it was previously, then why the elevated prices?
Something here doesn't add up. That's all I want to say on that.
It has a bad smell to it. Where that smell is coming from is what we should be finding out about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)