Jump to content


Royal Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,556 Excellent


About SavedByGrace1981

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 03/22/1953

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Upstate New York
  • Interests
    Finding out what it really means to serve Him. Christian fellowship; enjoying the grand kids; travelling; spending time with the love of my life and my best friend

Recent Profile Visitors

5,586 profile views
  1. The Death of Liberalism

    I think Reagan was a 'delegator' compared to, say, Jimmy Carter - a micro-manager. Reagan had a lot of people around him who weren't really conservative. Both styles of management have their strengths and weaknesses. I think Reagan was loved by conservatives because he was a 'visionary' and, as an actor, a lot of what he said and did touched our emotions and feelings. For instance, I still remember his speech, after the Challenger disaster: ". . . [they] slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God . . . " It still gives me chills. But yes - you're right in that when you look closely, especially at the economics, you see flaws. That's why I listed his part in ending the so-called 'cold war.' He did it mainly by in effect bankrupting the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, we were almost bankrupted at the same time. And even that, over time, has been overshadowed by the endless 'war on terror' we now find ourselves fighting. In hindsight, some aspects of the old 'cold war' don't look so bad. Blessings, -Ed
  2. The Death of Liberalism

    Maybe that was YOUR lightbulb moment. Blessings, -Ed
  3. The Death of Liberalism

    I don't have the stats in front of me, but I've always understood that most of the people who go into politics are lawyers. The most influential ones are the products of the most 'prestigious' law schools, the Harvards', Yales', etc. Given the ideology of those institutions, it is not hard to discern the political ideology of their graduates. It is an open question however as to whether or not ideology motivates them. Regardless of whether or not ideology is the driving force, I will agree that after a period of time it gives way to pragmatism. That is where corners are cut, values are compromised, and corruption begins. I think it's important here to draw a distinction between those IN government and those activists whose role it is to simply support those in government. While I believe there are few actual ideologues IN government, the same does not hold true for those of us on the sidelines. We saw the examples of the present day "Left" pointed out in the OP. While I disagreed that the new Left is liberal in the classic sense, I think it is correct to say the ideology of Marxism - in some cases totalitarianism - is driving it. We see it in the riots, the crackdown on free speech, and the general anarchy it seems to promote. When and if it doesn't get its way, it turns on a dime on the government apparatchiks like the Pelosis and Schumers who are ostensibly on its side. On the flip side of the new 'Left' is, of course, the new 'Right.' As a member of said group (for the sake of this discussion; I don't align with all things 'right'), I can only speak for myself when I say I never expected a utopia to arrive here on this earth (until The Lord returns, anyway). I probably took some literary excess using the term utopia. But when voting for a candidate I usually bought the argument that we have to vote a certain way - if only to get 'our justices' on the courts. The 'golden ring' was of course the Supreme Court. Some of us live long enough to have a 'lightbulb moment'. Mine came in June of 2012 when John Roberts - a 'good' 'conservative' 'originalist' justice; appointed by 'conservative' George W. Bush no less; went ahead and upheld the Unconstitutional train wreck a.k.a. Obamacare. It was then that I knew for certain the fix was in. My eyes were, as they say, opened. The new 'Right' shares one thing with its counterpart - the propensity to turn on those gov't officials who it feels 'betrays' them. That's why we see the hatred directed at the Ryans and the McConnells who are supposed to be on 'our' side. Even though these men are no more ideological than Pelosi or Schumer. Which brings me to the other wild card in this discussion - one that hasn't been mentioned yet. It relates to a metaphor I've used in the past. I call it 'water in my basement'. Having water in my basement is the default condition. If I do nothing, I'm going to have water in my basement. There may be perhaps 100 ways for water to get in my basement. If I only correct 99 of them, guess what - I'm going to have water in my basement. Likewise, 'liberalism' (not the classic; the statist) is the default condition of government. It is the one that takes no courage, no values. It is the easiest. Government, when left to its own devices, will grow, become corrupt, and devolve toward totalitarianism. Fighting statism/liberalism is an uphill battle - one that is replete with slings and arrows. It is just simply too tough for most and, like the water in my basement, fighting it successfully requires getting 100 out of 100 correct. That brings me back to my point about ideologues in government (the few there are.) They are rare, but over the last half century we've had what I would call two ideological presidents - Reagan (from the Right) and Obama (Left). While Reagan was generally adored by conservatives, he was hated by the establishment of that time. Therefore, his accomplishments - while notable - were limited. His greatest - a part in ending the 'cold war' - has been overshadowed by an endless ill-defined 'war against terror'. So even that accomplishment has been reduced. In short, Reagan's ideology did not mesh with the ideology of raw power and control of the global uni-party/establishment. Over time it's been chipped away at and, as a result, he truly does not have a lasting legacy. The Reagan presidency has turned out to be just a speed bump on the road to the all powerful global government the elites desire. Obama's Marxist ideology and its goals, on the other hand, does agree and dovetail with the goals of the global establishment. To close the loop on the metaphor - Reagan was bailing water from the basement; Obama was manning the hose, filling it. Blessings, -Ed
  4. The LGBT Agenda vs. Religious Freedom

    While it's true that God sees all sin as SIN, you have a point when you say that the Church or even some Christians may tend to grade some sins more severely than others. But that's on the Church or those Christians. That's not God's plan nor His desire for us to do that. In God's eyes, those afflicted by the sin of LGBT must do the same things as the rest of us afflicted by any other sin: 1. Recognize we are sinners in need of a Savior. 2. Repent of our sins - "Go and sin no more." One of my favorite old sayings: "The ground is level at the foot of the Cross." Blessings, -Ed
  5. The Death of Liberalism

    All that may be true, and I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise since word meanings change over time. But the larger point I'm making is for the most part ideology does not matter. Think about it - if I'm a peasant living under a totalitarian system, does it matter to me whether the regime calls itself a fascist or a Marxist one? Each have elements like secret police and thought crimes. Each are the antithesis of what our gov't purports to be, yet it is the direction to which our gov't is going. For years we've been under the illusion that there is a schism between left and right - liberal vs. conservative. It makes for exciting TV and newsworthy political conventions. We get to cheer for 'our side' and say we'll get 'utopia' when 'our side' prevails. But it's Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football. - perfection is 'just that close', but somehow it never arrives. We're being played for fools. The 'two sides' are really joined at the hip. I contend most politicians are not ideologues (previous POTUS excepted). Best case - they are shill politicians or bureaucrats; worst case they are tyrants and thugs. But they all share a lust for power and self promotion. Not statesmanship. Blessings, -Ed
  6. The Death of Liberalism

    The present day Left - as the author describes it - is anything but liberal. I'm not sure when the label 'liberal' became a bad word (Bush vs. Dukakis maybe?), but being a classic liberal was not a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson was what I would call a classic liberal. The whole concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people is a liberal one. Would that we HAD liberals in today's government - we don't. Ideologies such as liberalism and conservatism have little to do with how the government runs or who controls is. Schumer and Pelosi are not really liberals - they are simply apparatchiks. They have no ideology beyond staying in power and fleecing the taxpayers. One can say the same for those faux conservatives on the 'other side' like McCain, Ryan and McConnell. Trump certainly is not a ideologue (even his army of critics admit that). The present day left - while its more extreme elements do promote chaos and anarchy - has about as much relevance in the greater scheme of things as the present day right. And the labels only serve the purposes of the uni-party to keep us divided and bickering at one another. Blessings, -Ed
  7. The LGBT Agenda vs. Religious Freedom

    If 'hatred' was your motivation for speaking against the LGBTQ anything, then you were indeed wrong and it is good that the Holy Spirit convicted you of that. But please do not fall into the trap that the world has set by labeling saying anything counter to the homosexual agenda as 'hate.' We are on the verge - in this country - of following Canada's lead in calling many passages of Scripture hate speech. We are in Orwellian territory, indeed. Sin is sin - that is true. God hates it all, and our only hope is in Christ. But that said, I am not aware of any of the other categories of sins whose victims march in parades and demand special rights. Gossipers rights? Gluttons' parades? Adulterers' marches? Blessings, -Ed
  8. WorthyNews:Trump says no DACA deal yet, doubles down on border wall

    Using his own money, maybe? Because Congress already funded it over 10 years ago, and it's still not built. I think 'The Wall' has become a symbol - a rallying cry - of frustration. The frustration at the gall of the ruling class to not even put up any effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Election cycles have come and gone. Politicians have made promise upon promise. As soon as they get to DC, however, their promises .become null and void. I'm not sure what President Trump's end game is in this. But he has to know that the wall is not going to be built. Blessings, -Ed
  9. WorthyNews:Trump says no DACA deal yet, doubles down on border wall

    How? Blessings, -Ed
  10. WorthyNews:Trump says no DACA deal yet, doubles down on border wall

    I'll have to admit, this has me baffled. Pres. Trump HAS to know that the establishment/ruling party is NEVER going to allow THE WALL to be built. Yet - he keeps bringing it up. At what point I wonder will he concede? After the '18 elections? Blessings, -Ed
  11. WorthyNews: Trump slams Susan Rice: ‘What she did was wrong’

    No, Mr. Trump - she was not wrong. One can never be wrong if they are a member of the ruling party. Plus, she was an official in the bestest most wonderfullest administration ever. With the smartest man who ever lived as its head. See, Mr. Trump - even "members OF. YOUR. OWN. PARTY. (ha ha)" agree that Ms. Rice was not wrong: So there! Take it and lump it. The idea of even accusing someone of such high stature with impeccable establishment creds of wrongdoing is beyond the pale. Blessings, -Ed
  12. WorthyNews:Schumer, Pelosi announce deal with Trump on Dreamers

    More kabuki theater, which should dominate the news cycles for the next 48-72 hours. Regardless of whether Schumer or Pelosi are lying (boo hiss from the R side); or the WH is lying (boo hiss from the D side) - here's all anyone needs to know: The establishment WANTS open borders with unlimited illegal immigration, so: 1. DACA is not going anywhere. 2. THE WALL is never going to be built. Carry on . . . Blessings, -Ed
  13. Christians Outpace Fema in Getting Aid to Hurricane Victims

    This is wonderful news. Our church is small, so we've chosen to send extra monetary donations to our denomination's 'crisis care kit program' rather than donate directly. I'm sure all help and assistance is appreciated, though. Even gov't help. And the nice thing about non-governmental help is the general lack of red tape and other hindrances to acting quickly. Blessings, -Ed
  14. The LGBT Agenda vs. Religious Freedom

    I don't know why part of the above article appeared in strikeout font. I tried to fix it but couldn't. Oh well - that's technology. Blessings, -Ed
  15. The LGBT Agenda vs. Religious Freedom BY AVNER ZARMI SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 CHAT 51 COMMENTS One day in 2012, Charles Craig and David Mullins entered Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a wedding cake. Phillips, a Christian and self-described “cake artist” who custom-designs cakes for various occasions, politely declined, citing his religious beliefs. Having previously, in the words of his lawyer, refused to bake cakes for Halloween, or with anti-American, anti-family, or what he considered profane messages, Phillips also would not design a cake to celebrate an event in violation of his understanding of Leviticus XX, 13. Craig and Mullins promptly filed a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission ruled that Phillips must be compelled to provide wedding cakes equally celebrating any kind of union, or get out of the business. The basis of the ruling is a Colorado law that prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against anyone on the basis of race, religion, “gender,” or sexual orientation. Twenty other states have similar laws. Phillips has appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Colorado law infringes his right to the free exercise of his religion. Two years ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear a similar appeal filed by a New Mexico photographer who refused service for a same-sex ceremony; but it has agreed to hear this one. The case has been widely covered from a Christian point of view, which is understandable, since Christianity is the religious worldview that Phillips professes. But the implications of the ruling by the Orwellian Colorado Civil Rights Commission are far broader than that. So Agudath Israel of America, a 94-year-old Orthodox Jewish advocacy organization, has filed an amicus curiae brief in the case (full disclosure: I have the honor of serving as the Midwest regional vice president of the Aguda). The brief, which can be read in its entirety here, formulates the question: Will our society honor the guarantees of the Free Exercise Clause when a religious practice is based upon a moral judgment that is anathema to the contemporary zeitgeist ? It then goes on to document the uniqueness of the American experience in Jewish history and the resultant compelling interest of the Aguda in the outcome of this case. As a summary of its argument, the brief cites the words of Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., from 56 years ago: SPONSORED "[T]he issue in this case … is whether a State may put an individual to a choice between his business and his religion. …such a law prohibits the free exercise of religion.” Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 611 (1961) (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting). The brief notes numerous examples in which Jewish practices have been infringed, restricted, and prohibited in foreign countries. For example, Jewish law not only limits the species of that which can be consumed, but also mandates the method of slaughter that must be pursued for the meat to be kosher. Yet in Belgium, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, all countries with a Jewish population, the practice is prohibited. Indeed, the UK recently made a serious attempt to ban the practice there. As another example: Jewish law requires circumcision of all male babies on the eighth day of their lives, except under certain unusual circumstances that might endanger the baby’s life. Yet, on October 1, 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a resolution terming the practice a “violation of the physical integrity of children.” In May 2012, a regional appellate court in Cologne, Germany, ruled that religious circumcision amounted to bodily injury and was hence a criminal offense. Some months later, the Bundestag reversed this decision and promulgated a federal law permitting the practice for religious reasons. But the attempt had been made. A further example, and one that hits very close to home, is the case of the Vishnitz Girls School in the UK. In 2013, the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services, and Skills (OFSTED) visited the Orthodox Jewish primary school and passed it with flying colors. OFSTED highlighted the excellence of the commitment of teachers and staff to the pupils’ welfare and development. That was before the British redefinition of “marriage.” This year, OFSTED revisited the campus. While again noting the excellence of the curriculum and the fact that the girls were “confident in thinking for themselves,” the school was failed because of one issue: Pupils are not taught explicitly about issues such as sexual orientation. This restricts pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and does not promote equality of opportunity in ways that take account of differing lifestyles. As a result, pupils are not able to gain a full understanding of fundamental British values. The school is in imminent danger of losing its accreditation and being shut down. As the brief goes on to note, the sole major difference between all of these jurisdictions and that of the United States is that none of them have the Free Exercise Clause -- but we do. The brief then goes on to point out that, until quite recently, the sexual mores and standard of public morality in the United States were generally congruent with the principles of Biblical morality which have informed Jewish life for over 3,300 years, since the encounter at Sinai. As recently as 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy was constitutional. In 1996, Congress overwhelmingly passed the Defense of Marriage Act -- mandating that the federal definition of marriage was the union of one man and one woman -- by a vote of 342-67 in the House and 85-14 in the Senate. President Clinton signed it into law. Nothing in the Constitution changed between 1996 and the Obergefell decision of 2015; there had been no new amendment proposed, let alone ratified. What had changed was a seismic shift in the nation’s zeitgeist. A consensus had formed among the intellectual elite that homosexual activities were just another form of sex, and that same-sex unions were just another kind of “marriage.” But Jewish law, based on the timeless principles handed down at Sinai, does not have this flexibility and cannot accept the change. Moreover, it is a principle of Jewish law that one may not aid or abet an action which is prohibited, and so an Orthodox Jewish baker would be subject to the same strictures as Mr. Phillips. Mullins has given interviews in which he says that the issue was never merely about a wedding cake, and of course he is right. There are any number of other bakers who would gladly take their business. The issue is also not one of tolerance. It is of dominance. The LGBT agenda seeks to impose its warped views on all of us. As Erick Erickson states it in the title of his book: You Will Be Made to Care. No less a personage than the speaker of the British Parliament recently said: I feel we’ll only have proper equal marriage when you can bloody well get married in a church if you want to do so without having to fight the church for the equality that should be your right. Or in a synagogue. Which is pre https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/09/13/lgbt-agenda-vs-religious-freedom/