SavedByGrace1981

Therein lies the problem. Therein lies what the ruling party sees wrong with it and therein lies why it will never see the light of day. When it comes to non-negotiable issues for the US that are near and dear to the hearts of the ruling class, there are two: 1. Single payer, socialized health care, and; 2. Wide open borders with lax immigration. While I realize the subject of this particular proposal is LEGAL (not illegal) immigration, in putting restrictions of any kind on immigration policy it still goes against the grain of the members of the uni-party. Never fear, though. Immigration policy WILL be addressed. The globalist's globalist, John McCain, is on the case! http://theweek.com/speedreads/716519/john-mccain-thinks-force-trump-sign-bipartisan-immigration-bill Blessings, -Ed

Ain't that the truth! Congress faces a dilemma - they've created an entitlement monster that's never going to go away, but even they with their ability to spend money that won't even exist until the year 2100 cannot find a way to fund it. The only way out is to create something on the scale of Social Security - with all the payroll taxes that entails. Yet they know that doing so will be the death knell of any politician proposing it. While 'we the people' seem to want freebies, we're running out of rich (defined as anyone with a dollar more than us) people to tax for them. Perhaps enough senators and congresspeople - especially the ones in their 70s and 80s who may be in their final terms - can be persuaded to sponsor such a bill. Orrin Hatch? John McCain? Nancy Pelosi? I already have a name for it - which I proposed in a different thread: "The John S. McCain Memorial Cradle-To-Grave Magnificent Glorious Socialized Single-Payer Health Care Act." Pay up! Now!! Blessings, -Ed

I say let everyone in. What the heck? Who needs borders? Blessings, -Ed

I don't think it's the Klingons we need to worry about. Now the Borg - that's a different matter altogether.

Here's McCain, right on cue: Report: McCain Wants Congress to Pass ‘Gang of Eight’ Amnesty Bill When He Returns Blessings, -Ed

Scary thought, that's true. I remember my late uncle, who was a pastor, saying to me "if the Lord tarries much longer, He'll need to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah" And that was in 1980! While I don't agree with his comment about the Lord apologizing (He's the Lord - He doesn't need to!), it does reflect quite a generational perspective. I try to factor that in when I look at how things are now. And one other thing - a lot of what we see in society is a result of excessive affluence. People, relieved of the day to day struggle to simply survive, find worthless and silly things to occupy their time. At some point (again, if the Lord tarries) our country will experience a true economic crash and people will focus their attention on more serious things. Blessings, -Ed

He must have had a fantastic imagination, but even he could not have foreseen where we'd be 50 years hence. Blessings, -Ed

See? All the news ain't bad. Blessings, -Ed

The line between satire and news becomes more blurred by the day. I may not live to see it, but coming soon to a democrat near you will be the next push for an aggrieved victim's group demanding their rights . . . robots. Blessings, -Ed

Do White Men Really Deserve To Vote? Last time a journalist dared to use their platform and freedom of speech to discuss this question on the Huffington Post, she was silenced and the article was taken down. However, I saw it and thought that the benefits of reversing white men’s suffrage was definitely worth discussing. After all, women and people of colour went through times of not being allowed to vote, and the fact that white men never had to experience that is an injustice. Despite the fact that we are given the illusion of democracy today (even though in reality the electoral college decides our future for us), do oppressors of minorities and women deserve to choose to continue our oppression, or should we help them by withdrawing the right to vote from them for a while until we can truly get on the same page and connect? Women were not allowed to vote in the United States until 1920, so that’s over a millennium of women lacking the right to vote. And what reparations have been paid since then? Nothing. Where’s the justice for women? Black suffrage in the United States has also been a slow process where even when people of colour were legally allowed to vote in the 1860s, there were many obstacles such as the “Black Codes” and voter intimidation in general. Where’s their justice? Nowhere to be found. Historically, white men have had few problems voting and the way things are going, they will never understand the kind of injustice others have faced. Now, history lessons aside; many people who disagree so far might be thinking, “Yes, all this injustice that happened in the past was undoubtedly awful. However, two wrongs don’t make a right.” However one can’t be sure if withdrawing the white man’s vote could be considered a “wrong”. Furthermore, the point here that has to be made is that banning white men from voting temporarily will help them understand systemic injustice and help them become better, more empathetic allies to the social justice cause. In contexts like these, identity politics can be helpful, empowering and contributing to an important learning experience. White men who want to become better allies always come across the problem of “I will never understand what it feels like to be systemically oppressed” but this proposal may further their understanding of minority needs and improve relations between different genders and races, which is the ultimate goal; equality. http://affinitymagazine.us/2017/08/01/do-white-men-really-deserve-to-vote/

Opportunity knocking. The election of 2016 caused a slight detour, but since the republicans have successfully shot themselves in the foot it is time for the true 'party of government' to get the train back on track and proceed toward the goal. Blessings, -Ed

I'll have to admit - this response took me for a loop. One - our government rulers have worked too long and hard to get us to the point where we have socialized medicine and are on the verge of single payer. It is not even feasible to think that whatever mish-mash we end up with won't have the stamp of 'government' written all over it. Two - non profit. Government technically is non-profit, so you may get that one. But until there is a way for highly skilled people to work for nothing, they will continue to deserve and demand high salaries. Look for new taxes and those taxes to skyrocket. Three - a non human to run it. That is the most intriguing. I'd be interested (if you are being serious) to know what you have in mind. Robots? Space aliens? The Lord Himself? (I'll go with that one). Blessings, -Ed

Old Chinese Proverb: "If a scandal happens in DC and no one is around to report it, does it make a sound?" Blessings, -Ed

Bipartisan = Taxpayer's grab your wallets. All that's left for the ruling class to do now is figure out a way to get us to single payer - which has been the goal all along. Whatever happens, here's a name for the 'new' bill: "The John S. McCain Cradle to Grave Single Payer Free to Everyone Except You Marvelous Health Care Act". Blessings, -Ed

Blessings, -Ed

Great news! Thank you for posting this. Blessings, -Ed

Don't feel too bad, the problem is pervasive. And with the wacko Left out-doing itself daily with examples of outrage, one wonders why stuff would have to be made up in the first place. It is certainly counter-productive. It reminds me of something I almost fell for. The other day on FB someone posted a picture of a sign allegedly in front of an Islamic center. The sign purportedly said something like (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "We will prevail. Death to America. Allah be praised". This was supposedly in Dearborn, Michigan. Well, something didn't seem quite right, so I Googled the message and sure enough the "sign" was a creation of a website where people can create their own realistic looking church signs. This is a totally benign website - it's legitimate purpose was for churches who are considering purchasing a church sign to be able to see how it would look. But someone used the website to create a bogus sign - apparently with the purpose of then posting it on FB and getting people more riled up than they already are. And the sad thing is - there is much to legitimately criticize Islam and Muslims for - without making things up. Blessings, -Ed

There are myriad reasons why the cost of healthcare is outrageous. I'll list just a few: 1. Salaries of health care professionals. This is a problem that is not solvable, however - as the costs of schooling and training to become a doctor or nurse can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. 2. Lawsuits and the cost of malpractice insurance. Lawyers are getting richer and richer feeding off the misery of others. Since lawyers as a group make up most members of Congress, don't expect anything to change anytime soon in this regard. 3. Cost of prescription drugs. While members of Congress are not beholden to voters, they do listen to lobbyists. And the drug company lobby is huge. Therefore, expect no relief here anytime soon. 4. Insurance companies. Historically, insurance companies covered risks. The costs of individual policies were determined by actuarial tables. That is why for instance experienced drivers over 30 were generally offered cheaper auto insurance policies than 18 year old teen-aged drivers. With the mandate to cover pre-existing conditions however, all that has been thrown out on its head. Don't feel sorry for insurance companies, however. They too have a huge lobby, and they will do just fine. Congress will see to that. I've listed just 4 reasons, but there are many more. None of this matters, though because of the following reason. Live it; learn it; love it: 1. The ruling class/establishment/uni-party wants us to have single payer/socialized medicine, so single payer/socialized medicine we shall have. Blessings, -Ed

It's called deflection. If republicans could wave a magic wand, Jeb! Bush or Hillary! Clinton would be POTUS and they would be able to get back to their glory days of playing Stepin' Fetchit to the democrats. Blessings, -Ed

There are 10s of thousands of people who work in the alphabet soup agencies (FBI, DEA, ATF, EPA etc, etc). It's doubtful the typical grunt - i.e. non policy maker, average worker - carries much weight as to what their agencies do - or what role they play in carrying out establishment policy. Middle and upper management and director level certainly does, however. Presidents come and go. These people stay. Re-read who I defined as establishment - Ds, most Rs, and the media (particularly the news divisions). I'll give you that prior to his running, Trump was a member of the establishment in the same way that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are members of the establishment. His real estate empire was based in NY - meaning it was expeditious for him to have the 'right' views and give to the 'right' candidates - the Schumers; the Clintons and others who run this state. You do know that NYC is about 95 percent dem, right? I of course don't know this for a fact - since I do not know him personally - but I suspect Trump is actually rather apolitical. So I have taken (and still take) much of what he says with a grain of salt. Given all that, I contend Trump's establishment 'creds' expired the day he announced. You simply cannot convince me otherwise - after seeing the vitriol directed at him and the resistance he's encountered by that same establishment. Remember - I'm the one who has said all along that elections don't matter. Had a different R run, I likely would have reverted to form and voted for a 3rd party or simply sat it out. The establishment's meltdown, however, ensured Mr. Trump got my vote. No more; no less. And while I suppose I'm not surprised at the fact there is huge pushback, I am surprised as to the degree. It is now clear this establishment will - to paraphrase an infamous Viet Nam era quote - "destroy the country in order to 'save' it." Blessings, -Ed

Though I've never heard the term 'deep state' until recently, I believe there is what's called an 'establishment' that runs things in the fedgov. Has been for some time. It consists of the unelected bureaucracy (which makes up most of the government); the entire D party; most of the R party; and most of the media. Most who deny this exists ridicule the notion, saying "What? Do they have meetings? Do they meet in smoke filled rooms somewhere? Do they outright worship Satan?" I don't see it that way, but it is not outrageous to believe that those whose interests dovetail would work toward advancing those interests. And the interests of the establishment ARE NOT necessarily the same as the interests of the country at large. In fact, they rarely are. Bigger and more intrusive government (necessitating more and more gov't workers). Socialized medicine (the few having power over the many). Open borders (cheap labor and more takers for gov't freebies = more power to the few). These are just a few examples where the interests of the establishment conflict with those of the country. The establishment (not Donald Trump) holds the levers of power. Care to take a guess then at whose 'agenda' will prevail? I personally don't care if it's called the establishment or 'the deep state'. A rose (or in this case, a compost pile) by any other name . . . Blessings, -Ed

I've been saying for years that we're past the point in this country where elections matter. Perhaps that viewpoint is closer to reaching critical mass . . . Blessings, -Ed

Saw this on FB this morning: Calgary veteran who survived Dunkirk causes a stir at movie premiere http://globalnews.ca/news/3617564/calgary-veteran-who-survived-dunkirk-causes-a-stir-at-movie-premiere/ Bottom line - this 97 year old Dunkirk veteran liked the movie. Somehow, I'm pretty sure his opinion carries more weight than mine. Blessings, -Ed

The theater was mostly empty when I saw it (but that was probably because of the 2pm showing more than anything else). I agree with you that the movie showed respect - and I believe many movie goers (myself included) believe going to see it was also a way to respect those who were involved. I also agree that the movie could have been a lot better - I cannot account for the hugely positive reviews it has gotten. The larger issue perhaps for me is the way movies in general have evolved over the last few decades. The war movies I mentioned in the OP were all made many years ago. (in the case of Sergeant York, over 70 years ago). For what they may have lacked in special effects, they more than made up in development (though in the case of "Patton", along with excellent character portrayals it had - in my opinion - some of the finest examples of cinematography ever produced) One of the most recent war movies I've seen - "Saving Private Ryan" - also had excellent reviews and I also found it lacking. Perhaps I'm too tough a critic. Blessings, -Ed

I had time to kill yesterday afternoon, so I went to see the movie "Dunkirk'. I'm curious as to what others who have seen it thought about it. First off - the good (and I'll try not to include any 'spoilers'.): I saw it in an IMAX theater. For those who don't know what that is, it is a larger than normal, curved screen. The seating in the theater was raised more than in a regular theater. The effect when one watches the movie is that you are put in the center of the action (even with just the 2D versus 3D effect). If you do go to see this (or any) movie at an IMAX theater, expect to pay much more. Regular movie tickets in our area run between 9 and 10 dollars - this one was $17. (with my old people's discount, I ended up paying $14.50) I've seen one other movie at an IMAX theater - "Gravity" with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney. That one was in 3D (this one was not), which made the effect all the more greater. I'm not sure this movie was worth the extra $$$. (more on that later). The only other 'good' I can think of for this movie is the intent the producers had in making it in the first place. We're at a time when WWII vets are rapidly dying off. This movie honors those military people (and civilians) who lived through horrific times, yet came out victorious in the end. ' For that, I applaud it. Now for the bad: 1. The soundtrack. Every movie goer is aware of how important a soundtrack is - how critical to the whole movie going experience. It sets the tone - the mood. Words fail me in describing the 'music' in "Dunkirk". First off, to call it music is a disservice. It's akin to calling 'rap' music. The music soundtrack in this motion picture is really a series of "impressions" or noises. It is intended - I suppose - to convey the mixed up and disjointed feelings of those caught up in the circumstances. If that was indeed the intention, then it I suppose succeeded. And did I say it was loud? One review I read in IMDB (a review written by an actual Dunkirk veteran) said the music was actually louder than he remembered the events! 2. Lack of character development. Many reviews have commented on this - I'm certainly not the first. Again, while the decision by the producers to focus on the EVENTS rather than any INDIVIDUALS may have been commendable, it ends up shortchanging an audience who yearns to have someone to root for. For the most part, these characters weren't developed enough for us to care about them. 3. Disjointed plot. I won't include any spoilers here, but I'll say the story was told from three different viewpoints spanning three different lengths of time. It constantly went back and forth, with no time reference. I love war movies - like "Patton", "The Longest Day" and "Sargent York" (I guess I'm dating myself here) I wanted to like this movie, as well - but it was a disappointment. Especially given the rave reviews it has gotten. I'd like to hear what others think. Blessings, -Ed