Jump to content


Royal Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SavedByGrace1981 last won the day on November 29 2012

SavedByGrace1981 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,689 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

6,939 profile views
  1. Amen, Brother! (and thank you for your service to the country.) I agree with you - particularly about the republicans. Have you ever noticed - the dems march in lockstep; no one with a D after their name ever breaks ranks. But in any given controversial issue, there always seems to be at least one or two (or 3 or 4) Rs who are more than willing to 'reach across the aisle' (I despise that term, btw) and do the Ds bidding. Jeff Flake is simply the latest example. And as I write this, I'm watching a football game and I see that Flake and his new pal Coons is going to be on "60 Minutes". He's apparently taken the "John McCain chair" as the Left's favorite republican (i.e. one who can be counted on to stab his constituients/party in the back.) Quick - when was the last time a D ventured 'across the aisle' and worked with an R. I certainly cannot think of one. To the uninitiated, the term "bipartisanism" sounds like a wonderful thing. After all, shouldn't the members of Congress put aside partisan differences and work for the good of the people? Yes. But 'in theory' does not translate to fact. What actually happens when Rs work with Ds is that borders become open; bad treaties with Iran get approved; and we tend to go into "no win" wars. No thanks. Blessings, -Ed
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Can someone please explain to me how this is not racist? Blessings, -Ed
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Removing the senior senator from South Carolina would be a start. Blessings, -Ed
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. I agree with you. Over the last couple of days however, since this has been in the news, I've wondered what God's plan is in all this? We've already seen good economic news and some might look at that as God's Blessings. But I have to ask a hard and difficult question - why would God be blessing us, now? What have we done as a nation to merit God's blessings? Our nation is still hugely divided. Good - even great economic news will inevitably be discounted or ignored if it is seen as coming from Trump policies or the republicans. It won't be covered on most of the media outlets. At least half the people won't hear about it. "Thou shall not covet" is the tenth Commandment - yet coveting (e.g. being resentful of what others have) is the basis and reason for being for at least one of the branches of the Uni-party that runs Washington, DC. It seems to be the desired motivating factor. I'm supposed to "hate" the rich because they got a bigger tax break than I did? Why? What sense does that make? I tend to think that God hasn't necessarily 'blessed' us, but He may have given us a reprieve. Now it's up to us to do something with it. Our nation needs revival - that is the only TRUE blessing. -Ed
  14. MG, I followed your link and this is the headline: Tom Brokaw Says Fox News Is 'On A Jihad' To Destroy FBI's Credibility So his 'beef' (in this case) isn't with Trump; it's with Fox News. Whatever one thinks of FNC, you have to admit it's become a convenient whipping boy of The Left. As a last resort, if the 'messenger' is solely "Fox News", then the messenger can be shot and there are no further consequences. I've always wondered who gets to determine which 'scandals' are a threat to the republic and our way of life - and which ones can be safely ignored. If the 'scandal' is carried on CNNCBSABCNBCMSNBCWASHPOSTNYTIMES, then it's one we should all worry about. The perpetrator is one to be feared and hated. It's been a while since I've read "1984", but in that novel there was something I believe called 'the two-minute hate.' That's what I see the mainstream media providing. Fox, however, seems to be different. When they cover a scandal that paints a statist like Obama in a bad light - say, Benghazi for instance - then it can be ignored by the rest of the media with no consequences. If it is ever inconveniently brought up in polite conversation, then it can be dismissed with a simple "Where did you hear that, on Fox News? What are you, stupid?" Brokaw longs for a time when he (and Uncle Walter and Danny boy Rather) had no opposing views on the nightly news. In the time of only 3 networks, one could tune into ABC and see the exact same stories covered in the exact same way as they would on NBC or CBS. And they, of course, usually followed the lead set by the NY Times earlier in the day. Life was so much more simple, then. EEEEEVIL Fox News. Blessings, -Ed
  • Create New...