Voice of the Kingfisher speaks out …from a different perspective
by Elinor Montgomery
January 02, 2014
Last night, New Year’s night, I listened to Hannity very briefly as he interacted with his panel of guests, made up of a mixture of Democrats and Republicans. I generally consider Hannity the bravest of the night-time interviewers on Fox TV in so far as he declares his colors and allows it to be obvious, within his fair and balanced questioning, that he definitely has values of one kind, and on one side.
He clearly makes these values known when asking challenging questions to those who disagree with him. He tends to deal with the opposition like one trying to remove a bone from a dog. The dog makes all sorts of jerky moves as it pulls away, holding tightly, but Hannity, more often than not, reaches the point where he forces the dog to take its bone and go somewhere else where Hannity can’t get at it.
He is very good at his job of playing the game, which, to some degree, all of them play, but he is better than most in that he will persist in the challenge. However, there is one move the dog makes, which will cause even Hannity to give in to it and take his hand of control away from the bone. It is the Democrat’s move, which gets the Republicans every time.
Last night, a female Democrat made that move, which caused Hannity to let go of his advantage like he were letting go of a hot potato. She was carrying-on like the other Democrat members of the panel with the double-talk technique – you know, the one Bill Clinton used so cleverly for the world to see when he asked the question as to what sex really is. How could he be accused of sexual misconduct if his dalliances with women did not fit the full bill of a sexual act?
Was there such a thing as a half sexual misconduct that really could not be treated like a full sexual misconduct? “Ha, ha,” he said to himself, “I got them! They can’t come out and accuse me of sexual misconduct if such cannot be fully defined and what it is that constitutes a sexual act. I will challenge them to dare accuse me on what could become a reduced charge where my intent was not to carry out an act of sexual misconduct. How can they read my mind and intent if I could possibly not intend any full act of sexual misconduct? Perhaps I can convince them that I am just a nice, overly-friendly guy caught in an overly-friendly situation between the sexes? Ah, I got ya!” says Billy.
Last night, this same procedure played out as the Democrats spouted their ‘Clintonisms’ about whether or not outright lies are really lies. “I did not have sex with that woman” turned into “If you like your insurance, you can keep it, period, and if you like your doctor you can keep him.” Billy out-and-out lied; he was not misunderstood. The President, out-and-out lied, and meant to do so, in spite of the Democrat waffling on the issue saying Obama really didn’t mean what he said, with the bottom line, being set by the question as to how one defines a lie.
Let us go straight to Scriptures for the answer as to what Jesus would do under the circumstances. Number one, Jesus never once buckled to the message of Satan, which states that God doesn’t really mean what He says when He warns His people that they will surely die. Satan persuades the man that the God of truth is just toying with him. He continues to lie suggesting that God created man, knowing all along that man would become more like Him, if he were to know both good and evil. Jesus challenged the religious men, the liberals of His day, being very clear about where He stood on the subject of truth and where the liars stood:
“Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it (John 8:43-44).” Jesus did not mince His words. He accused the Pharisees of liberalism of not only lying, but also, as liars, of being satanic, or sons of the devil.
Finally, one female Democrat spat it out like a viper as she challenged Hannity with the liberal hammer. Was Hannity actually saying that Obama should be impeached? There you have it – the proper conclusion of calling a president a liar. She had stated it and then threw out the challenge to Hannity to dare state it and invite the wrath of the politically correct to fall upon him. Would he dare to suffer the consequences of going on record alongside of the Duck Dynasty man, Phil Robertson, to speak truth in spite of the politically correct hammer? Dare he speak the unthinkable truth about Obama being held accountable for his botched-up government policies?
Would he also go on record for suggesting that there are truths and moral standards for which one must be held accountable? The liberal group will tell you that all things are relative to everyone’s own standards, except those, which are Bible-based. Would Hannity dare to challenge the President’s legitimacy with the unthinkable, ‘accountability’ word of impeachment? Would Hannity dare to oppose the same liberal hammer the President uses to put the fear of the politically correct bunch in anyone who dares to come against his agendas?
And the Progressive’s hammer hit where it was intended to hit and Hannity buckled by responding with these words, “Did I say he should be impeached?” and then proceeded to ask for a show of hands as to whether or not he had said those words. It appeared that the Republicans agreed with him that he had not said the unmentionable word. Thank goodness he had not gone that far! And so, there you have it – the basis for a future Republican defeat. They will buckle every time when accused of acting on what is morally right and wrong.
The Republicans are afraid to stand on the very principles by which these two nations of America were founded. Hannity’s answer should have been more like a ‘Duck Dynasty’ call. Of course, the President should be impeached as a liar, for a lie is a lie, not a half-truth as the libs would have the public believe. Instead, Hannity was afraid to stand up to the liberal threats and state the logical outcome for any president who so chooses to deliberately lie and mislead the American people, not once, but numerous times. Of course he should be impeached as a black man, every bit as much as a white man should be. It is called common sense, not racism.
Unless the Republicans show a little ‘Duck Dynasty’ guts and learn from them that the public will support the absolutes in a minute, then no one is going to come out to vote for Republicans if they appear to be very little different from the Democrats except in name only. This is the root of their problem; they continue to legitimize the lies found in Satanisms, Clintonisms and now Obamaisms; all are liars and not one has any respect for the truth.
It all began in the Garden with the entire world now about to buy into liberalism, unless the Republicans get their act together and decide whether or not they are going to leave the challenge up to ‘Duck Dynasty’ to respond in truth, being unafraid to do so. They can see by the results of what happened that the public is just waiting for some gutsy people to begin to challenge the lies and call them what they are and deal with them, not set up committees for endless hours of double talk, but no conclusive accountability.
Mitt Romney failed to take up the gauntlet of calling a spade a spade, and the Chris Christies will play the political game of finding out exactly where their bread is buttered, and then act accordingly. It is time to look for a Phil Robertson who would have the guts to say what Hannity was afraid to say, “Of course, y’re dang tootin’. That is exactly what I’m sayin’. A lie is a lie and a liar should be put out of the office of the President fer that reas’n and that reas’n alone.”
Here is a man worth voting for. His bravery and sincerity supersede his Hollywood glamor and polish. He may not be cool like the would-be-messiah, Obama, but surely we have had enough of what ‘cool’ does! I would take Robertson any day over cool-hand Luke and slippery Billy. I bet you would see prayer reinstated, in the name of Jesus, in both the government and the military, ‘faster than shootin’.
You had your chance, Mr. Hannity, and you blew it when there is nothing you believe more than the fact that the liar should go, but were simply too afraid to admit it. Who knows, maybe, millions would have gotten behind you like they got behind ‘Duck Dynasty’ until the government would be forced to make the right move and get rid of the liars in government.
And here is my solution to the matter. The President and Vice-president of the United States both deserve to be removed from office, for having won their positions by deception and lies. Then, the victory of the past election can go to Mitt Romney and his party by default, if the United States is to remain standing on its foundation of liberty. There is a time coming just ahead for a fair election, one not based on a pack of lies, when the Republicans can call the Democrats on every lie they speak. They cannot be allowed to go forth without the challenge, which Hannity should have accepted.
I would even go so far as to suggest that ‘Duck Dynasty’ could produce a better presidential candidate faster than the Republican Party could find one. For the people are now craving honesty and are fed up with the political correctness jazz, with the only word I can think of to describe it aptly as coming from the good Dynasty’s language, which likely includes the word “crap”.
Though the Ducks may appear to be a little less bright than the Harvard crew, they are a whole lot wiser than either the Democrats or the Right wing of government. I would bet my dollar on a Duck government before I would bet a cent on the Democrats or even 50 cents on the Republicans.
I think the Ducks have got it, by George, I think they’ve got it – the combination solution of boldness coupled with prayer in the name of Jesus. It is a winning Duck call.