Jump to content


Royal Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,687 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

6,537 profile views
  1. I guess I'm not clear on exactly what the issue is here. Pres. Trump said "credentials." Is he referring to WH Press Corps credentials? (I assume he is). That, then, is slightly different than a strictly 1st Amendment issue. I think we can all agree that access to the WH Press room must be restricted and limited - the sheer number of "press organizations" make that imperative. But then - one may ask - what constitutes a legitimate press organization? Is the Podunk High School student newspaper to be provided the same credentials as CNN or FNC (wait, that might not be a bad idea!) So obviously credentials exist for a purpose, but then that begs the next question - who determines what is or is not a "valid" press organization? Theoretically, a press organization COULD be denied its WH press credentials based on its perceived biases. And, as much as some of us would like to see CNN (for an example) banned, I hope we can in our saner moments agree it is not a good idea. For if a president (or his WH staff) we agree with can do this, so can a POTUS we do not agree with. I have to plead ignorance on exactly what is the procedure for one to attain WH press credentials - perhaps it is some sort of lottery system. That would - for me - be a fair system. One that does not take into account biases. All of us are frustrated with the state of the media in our country today. But the solution (I believe) does not exist in tinkering around with the 1st Amendment. And even though denying credentials is not technically denying one's 1st A rights, it's a start to what is perhaps a slippery slope. I consider myself a 1st Amendment absolutist - it should be as unrestricted as possible. The solution to "fake news" (negative news is a different matter) is not to limit the 1st A. Rather, it's to get valid news out there. In the parable of the wheat and the tares, the solution was to let both grow to fruition, then it would be easier to distinguish between the two. Fake news will eventually be exposed by the reporting of truth. Blessings, -Ed
  2. SavedByGrace1981

    Pedogate coming down!

    Because, like I said, it is "out" on websites and by individuals that can be discredited (or worse) by the so-called mainstream press. It's similar to what happened during Benghazi. Slightly different situation, but the only 'mainstream' organization that covered it was FNC - thus allowing the other 'mainstreams' to ignore/ridicule it. I'd like to be wrong on this - and if there's something to it, that it would come out. When I was a kid, I liked believing in Santa Claus, too. Blessings, -Ed
  3. SavedByGrace1981

    Pedogate coming down!

    The OP gave the impression that it was a ring operating out of DC; it's exposure was imminent; and it would involve high level gov't officials. The first link you provided was about an international ring and I could not find a date - but I don't think it was recent. The second link (which may reference the same incident) was from August 2016. The third link was closer, but (not to sound critical) is hardly a mainstream source. And it even is from August 2017. The forth link is from Jan. 2013. Understand - I'm not implying that the ring in DC does not actually exist. In fact, it likely does. And if it does, it likely involves movers and shakers from all branches of gov't and both branches of the ruling party. What I AM saying is that a story like this will NEVER, EVER get out into the so-called mainstream. The players are not called 'movers and shakers' for nothing, and they will literally scorch the earth before letting even a hint of it out. No one is going to risk life and limb for this story. Blessings, -Ed
  4. SavedByGrace1981

    Pedogate coming down!

    Drudge? CNN? Fox? ABCNBCCBSWASHPOSTNYTIMES? Are any of them reporting this? So called "pizza gate" has been under the surface for well over a year now - where is that going? If you have other news sources that have this, please share them. Blessings, -Ed
  5. SavedByGrace1981

    Pedogate coming down!

    I looked up David Zublick and watched his latest video on You Tube. My advice: Don't hold your breath waiting for any of this to come out. Mr. Zublick seems to be the only one reporting it, which means a) it's false, and he's a crackpot or conspiracy theorist; or, b) it's true. If option b is the case, then the establishment will go nuclear to keep any of it from coming out. If you think the swamp is fighting back now, just wait . . . You ain't seen nuthin' yet. Blessings, -Ed
  6. Cannot speak for others, but I am an "all or nothing" kind of guy. If walkouts are going to be allowed (tolerated), then ALL walkouts must be allowed. But only walkouts GENUINELY promoted by students - not adults with an agenda using kids for fodder. My 'druthers however would be that walkouts would not be allowed. Blessings, -Ed
  7. Not taking sides either , but are you suggesting then that since the door has been opened to student walk outs, that only "approved" issues can be tolerated? Surely you are not suggesting that . . . are you? Blessings, -Ed
  8. SavedByGrace1981

    Chuck Schumer will vote against this judicial nominee just because he's white

    Can someone please explain to me how this is not racist? Blessings, -Ed
  9. Chuck Schumer will vote against this judicial nominee just because he's white by Becket Adams | Mar 1, 2018, 6:28 PM This is not a loose paraphrase of what he said. It is nearly verbatim his explanation for his “no” vote on the nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The only thing missing is the senator stating specifically that he couldn't support a white nominee because two African-American nominees had failed to pass a Senate vote. “The nomination of Marvin Quattlebaum speaks to the overall lack of diversity in President Trump’s selections for the federal judiciary,” Schumer told senators. “Quattlebaum replaces not one, but two scuttled Obama nominees who were African-American.” He added, “As of Feb. 14th, 83 percent of the President Trump’s confirmed nominees were male, 92 percent were white. That represents the lowest share of non-white candidates in three decades. It’s long past time that the judiciary starts looking a lot more like the America it represents. Having a diversity of views and experiences on the federal bench is necessary for the equal administration of justice.” First, it is morally wrong to deny a person a job because of his skin color. You can argue that Republican senators did the same to the President Barack Obama-appointed African-American nominees, but that relies on suspicion and theory — they were probably rejected for reasons of political partisanship. The senator from New York, on the other hand, is saying outright that he will not vote for Quattlebaum's nomination because he is white. Secondly, please. This isn't about diversity. This is politics. Lastly, Schumer’s speech is humorous considering he is the minority leader of a governing body that is overwhelmingly white and male. There are currently only 22 female senators, 17 Democratic and five Republican. We started this year with only 21, but Sen. Al Franken’s exit opened the door for Minnesota’s former lieutenant governor, Tina Smith, to take his seat. There are also only three black senators out of 100, according to the Senate webpage. It's extremely unlikely Schumer, himself a white male, will step aside anytime soon to balance out the mix. In 1998, when he first ran for U.S. Senate, he had no problem elbowing out a woman, Geraldine Ferraro, and a Guatemalan immigrant, Eric Ruano-Melendez, for the Democratic nomination. No one could really blame him just because he ran, or just because he backed white Democrats for Senate like former Rep. Patrick Murphy and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., over black lesser-known competitors. The senator can claim his opposition to Quattlebaum is about fairness, but his spotty track record says otherwise. It’s about politics. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/chuck-schumer-will-vote-against-this-judicial-nominee-just-because-hes-white/article/2650484
  10. SavedByGrace1981

    How and why Trump was elected.

    That's pretty good at explaining why Mr. Trump was elected. I'd just like to add to it to try to illustrate where we might be going from here. 1. Even though the '4 different exterminators' spend lots of money on advertising to try to convince you, the homeowner, to 'choose me, I'm much better than the others'; when all is said and done they're all pals and hang out together. They certainly don't want any outside interloper exterminators coming in. What's more, they all really work for the city - not you. 2. They come in, tinker around, and try to convince you that they've done their job. But truth be told, if they REALLY were successful in getting rid of the raccoons, then you wouldn't need them, would you? 3. They might try to convince you that raccoons are actually good for you - and you should want more. In fact, you should provide a more inviting environment for them. If you express a contrary opinion, they ridicule you - or accuse you of hating cute, cuddly little furry creatures. They don't care about the damage the raccoons may be doing to your home, since after all, they don't live there. They might not even live in the city. 4. They - the 4 and the city - pool all their resources and go after the interloper guy. They accuse him of colluding with the squirrels. They bring raccoon defendants before sympathetic judges, who rule it is illegal to evict the raccoons from the basement. Raccoons have rights! What the city and the four exterminators hope to do is just to wait out the situation - hope the interloper exterminator gets discouraged, tired, or that they can just run him out of town. And then we'll all return to "the good ol' days". Blessings, -Ed
  11. A couple of things here: 1. Even though Pres. Obama went on TV (with Chris Wallace, I believe) and adamantly declared that he never communicated directly with the FBI director about ongoing investigations, it is now clear he wasn't being truthful. Is anyone surprised? 2. RE: Agents Strozk and Page. I have a question/comment: Are these the BEST and the BRIGHTEST the FBI has to offer? Really? Not only carrying on an office 'affair', but doing so texting on gov't accounts and phones? Basic government employee rule no. one - learned on the first day: All emails and texts on government issued equipment and accounts are SUBJECT TO REVIEW and are the property of the US Gov't. Forget about their alleged biases or immaturity (high school level at best). What about their ability and judgement? That's what concerns me. Blessings, -Ed
  12. SavedByGrace1981

    media hides photo obama with farrakhan

    Exactly right. Had the existence of this picture come out in 2008, it would have been relegated to Fox News - meaning the rest of the media would have been given carte blanche to ignore it. Remember - anything detrimental to statism or so-called 'progressiveism, when it appears only on Fox News, can be safely ignored by all other media. If it is brought up, it can be shot down with "where'd you hear that, Fox News??" The truth about Obama was there in 2008 - for anyone who cared enough to look for it. Blessings, -Ed
  13. SavedByGrace1981

    WorthyNews: Shock poll: Americans want massive cuts to legal immigration

    Removing the senior senator from South Carolina would be a start. Blessings, -Ed
  14. SavedByGrace1981

    White House doctor: Trump in 'excellent health'

    I've been thinking about these daily anti-Trump threads, and my Christian brothers and sisters who post on them and applaud them. The Apostle Paul's words in 1 Cor. 10:23 come to mind: “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. Also the Commandment against '. . . bearing false witness'. Our country is plagued by citizens with many diverse voices - some of them have evil and divisive intent. As Christians, we are called to a higher purpose. It's fine to have differing POLITICAL opinions (Jesus' disciples ran the gamut from Matthew who served the hated Romans as a tax collector; to Simon the Zealot who wanted to overthrow Rome), I believe Christians are called to a higher purpose than contributing to the division. My advice would be before posting, ask yourself: "Is what I'm about to post going to heal; or is it going to divide?" Just my $0.02. Blessings, -Ed
  15. SavedByGrace1981

    President Trump is America's SECOND most admired man

    I don't put much stock in these "most admired" surveys since they are in essence just popularity contests. The proof of that is that the lists change from year to year. A person doing truly admirable things is probably living their life that way. An exceptional person in that regard would be on the list for multiple years. In the unlikely event that I would ever get called for a survey like this, I would come up with a name of a missionary - particularly one ministering in a place where they were risking their life. And the ironic part of that would be such a missionary probably wouldn't want their name publicized. I think it's good to 'appreciate' what people do, but I cannot think of anyone in the news I really admire. Everyone is fallible and every0ne will disappoint us from time to time. Best to save our admiration for the One who truly deserves it. Blessings, -Ed