SavedByGrace1981

This is very early on, so I'm not going to comment too extensively here. More details will ultimately come out. Offhand though, I'm not for our getting more bogged down in the mid-east, so it is troubling. Kind of puts the lie to the mantra "Trump is Putin's puppet", though. Blessings, -Ed

That's what they SAY - but talk is cheap. John Roberts - a REPUBLICAN appointee - did the unthinkable when he UPHELD Obamacare in the SCOTUS. He bears as much blame for that fiasco as the democrats. Bush II and the republican Congress increased spending and created boondoggles like The Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind. Finally, I contend the republicans are as in favor of illegals coming into the country as democrats - just for different reasons. (Dems - votes; Reps - cheap labor). Which just shows how fatally STUPID the republicans are, because the seeds of their demise are IN those illegal immigration numbers. While I did vote for Trump in the last election (as a thumb in the eye to the establishment), most recent elections I've voted third party. Blessings, -Ed

McCain has a history of trashing fellow republicans as far as I can tell. It has always gotten him face time on the Sunday shows. He's a prima donna among prima donnas I'd feel sorry for you - having him as your senator and all - but then I have Schumer and now Ms Potty Mouth Gillibrand. Are there ANY good senators? Blessings, -Ed

You beat me too it - I was going to make that very point myself. Though in all fairness, I think it first was Jimmy Carter who 'refused' to 'go quietly into the night', as his predecessors had done. It was way before my time (before presidents built monuments to themselves and called them libraries), but I wish our contemporary presidents followed the Calvin Coolidge example. Upon leaving office, he simply retired to his front porch in Vermont. Blessings, -Ed

Given the McCains, Snowes, Grahams and Mikulskis - you put way more faith in the republican party than I do. I've often said - as bad as the democrats are - they stand for SOMETHING (and have the ability to remain united). I basically disagree with pretty much everything they stand for, but they stand for something. (Even if it's just opposing republicans and/or Trump) Because we have a two-party system and the only vehicle to oppose the democrats are the republicans, they have an OBLIGATION to be the opposition party. Yet they do not do so. Oh, certain members will rant and rave. They'll (like McConnell) say "I want to see Obama be a one-term president". Then they'll roll over like good puppy dogs and give democrats virtually everything (oftentimes more) than they want. Can anyone tell me what republicans stand for? Blessings, -Ed

A good (long - 5 pages) read, but worth it. I only have one slight quibble with the writer's opinion of the New York Times - I think he sees it through slightly rose colored glasses. Here's what he wrote (from page 4 at the link): My quibble is that I believe the Times has always (well, at least since the 1930s) been enamored of Communism - especially Soviet style. An excellent book detailing just that is still in print and available on Amazon: Stalin's Apologist: Walter Duranty: The New York Times's Man in Moscow Other than that though, he makes excellent points about the contemporary media and its future. Blessings, -Ed

It's generally difficult to know for sure what motivates people. You can say with Barack Obama it's Islam, and you may be right. I tread gingerly in areas like this, however. I prefer instead to focus on things that are more obvious and less controversial. One, it's not controversial to say Mr. Obama has a huge ego (I think it's a requirement for that office) So to say he's not leaving the public stage in part because he likes his ego fed is pretty obvious. And it clear to me he's part of, and speaks for, the establishment. And the establishment fears and loathes populism. Blessings, -Ed

No problem. Hope you get feeling better Blessings, -Ed

Here - I'll take the liberty of re-posting my initial post on the thread: As you can see, I mentioned Islam because the OP had mentioned it. But you also see I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I also spoke of populism; how it scares the establishment; and how Mr. Obama is staying relevant by talking about it. Feel free to discuss those. Blessings, -Ed

He may, in fact, BE a Muslim. There certainly is circumstantial evidence to support that. I was just going by what the man said. And yes, there is quite a spectrum of philosophies and denominations that claim to be Christian. I certainly do question them and I do not endorse them, but in the end I'll just have to let God sort it out. (not that He needs my permission, of course.) Blessings, -Ed

2013 article in the Washington Times. NAPOLITANO: The right to shoot tyrants, not deer Blessings, Ed

Though perhaps his statement grates on our 2017 ears, the judge is essentially correct. And the 1st Amendment gives him the right to say it. 'Tyrannical' is a pretty high bar, however. For instance, when I think of tyrannical, I think of N. Korea or Cuba. Though flawed in many ways, our government isn't even close to those - yet. If one is of that mindset to the point of taking up arms against 'the government', then they best be prepared to pay the consequences. Blessings, -Ed

While I'm no fan of Islam nor former president Obama, I don't think this has anything to do with whether or not he's a Muslim (he does claim to be a Christian, by the way). Populism - however it is defined - scares the bejeebers out of the uni-party. Obama is simply putting to words what 98 percent of the establishment believes. And by doing so, he benefits himself and his ego by staying in the public eye. Blessings, -Ed

This has been in the forefront now for a couple of news cycles (an eternity in our obsessed culture), and I have some thoughts: It's been brought up that Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar" depicted a political assassination and what results from it. These recent iterations - where contemporary presidential look-alikes have been the lead character (hence assassinated) are just 'art.' Why should anyone then get bent out of shape when a Trump look-alike is depicted? Even Obama was portrayed as such back in 2012. Put aside the fact that the Obama depiction was in Minneapolis (somewhat more obscure than the NYC version featuring Trump) making it a kind of an 'apples and oranges' comparison, my question pertains to the type of person that finds this 'art' to begin with. The lines between pornography and 'art' used to get blurred, as well. The intellectuals and the grey beards used to lecture the masses that what was clearly (to the rest of us) pornography was, in fact, art. Never mind that it appealed to the basest instincts and had no 'redeeming' social value. I see the same thing here - and I cede the point that I do not understand it. Personally, I am offended when ANY president - whether I agree politically with him or not - is 'assassinated' on stage. Why would anyone find this 'art'? It would offend me if it were Obama; and it should offend anyone of good will that it's Trump. Pornography appealed to the worst in us. This, to me, is political pornography. It appeals to the worst in Trump's critics. We can, and should, do better. Blessings, -Ed

My comment isn't about "[homosexual] pride month" specifically, but the general practice of declaring certain months "_________ (insert aggrieved group here) pride month." So if I'm correct, the month of February is usually declared "Black Pride Month." Has anyone ever commented on the fact that even in that, blacks are getting short shrift? February is the shortest month, after all . . . Blessings, -Ed

I think what he's saying is that a formal boycott - organized by Christians - only fits into the 'template' (mis-conceived though it is) the world has of Christians. We're all haters (of homosexuals and others) - or so the world says. It really cannot (nor does it want to) understand the concept of 'hate the sin; love the sinner.' And of course the world seems to overlook and/or excuse (for the most part) a religion that DOES hate homosexuals - to the point of beheadings. Blessings, -Ed

I think this is wrong - it's a quagmire. It was a mistake from the beginning; the previous administration compounded the mistake; and now we're going to 'double-down.' Sad. Blessings, -Ed

US to Send Thousands of Additional Troops to Afghanistan The United States will send an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, the Associated Press reported Friday. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is expected to officially announce the decision as soon as next week, a Trump administration official told the AP. “[The decision] follows Trump's move to give Mattis the authority to set troop levels and seeks to address assertions by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan that he doesn't have enough forces to help Afghanistan's army against a resurgent Taliban insurgency. The rising threat posed by Islamic State extremists, evidenced in a rash of deadly attacks in the capital city of Kabul, has only fueled calls for a stronger U.S. presence, as have several recent American combat deaths. The bulk of the additional troops will train and advise Afghan forces, according to the administration official, who wasn't authorized to discuss details of the decision publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. A smaller number would be assigned to counterterror operations against the Taliban and IS, the official said. The report comes days after Mattis acknowledged during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States is “not winning” the 16-year war in Afghanistan. “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. And we will correct this as soon as possible,” he said. The comments came after a tense exchange with Chairman John McCain about the lack of an Afghanistan strategy six months into the Trump administration. Mattis assured the chairman he will brief the committee in detail on a new strategy by mid-July. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/06/16/us-to-send-4000-additional-troops-to-afghanistan-n2342323?utm_campaign=socialflow_HE&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

From the Newsweek link: AJ, I would propose that those facing charges should be tried in our courts and not sent back. If guilty, then serve their prison terms in our jails. I just hate the thought of sending Christians to an almost certain death. Blessings, -Ed

Years ago I was a much bigger fan of boycotts than I am now. I think what changed is when I and my family moved to a very small, remote town in Nevada (as it turned out, we only stayed there a year and a half before returning to my wife's home area here in NY). For those who don't know, Nevada has historically had a very 'libertarian' view of vices like gambling and pornography. Well, up to this time (we had moved from very conservative Oklahoma), I had always believed in boycotting convenience stores that sold so-called 'men's magazines' for instance; and I have never gambled in my life. The problem was - in the very small remote town we moved to, if one held to those views there would literally be no place to shop, buy food or eat dinner out. Gambling and pornography displays were literally everywhere. Perhaps because of that I've developed a what I like to call a (small L) libertarian attitude. While I agree that Christians can and should spend their money where they see fit, I believe the effectiveness of formal boycotts is nil. For one, the attitude of the McDonald's corporation toward 'homosexuality' (I refuse to use the term 'gay') is simply the same one echoed by virtually all other US Corporations. If we're going to be consistent, we Christians will have very few places to shop, indeed. Also, Christian 'boycotts' just seem to draw attention from what (Who) are message should be about - Jesus Christ and His Message. Boycotts generate counter-boycotts, usually - again drawing attention AWAY from what our message should be. For the record, I spend very little money here at the local Micky Ds. One or two cups of coffee a week (at $1.08 per cup) and maybe one or two meals a month. And this particular one is privately owned and I do like to support local businesses. But isn't it great that we as Christians have the freedom (in Christ) to decide these issues for ourselves? Blessings, -Ed

I'm going to disagree here (with the idea of a boycott). Individual Christians are of course free to decide for themselves whether or not to patronize McDonalds - I just dislike the idea of formal boycotts (in most cases). Besides, I doubt our local McDonalds franchise here in the hinterlands is onboard with this. So I'll still get my infrequent morning coffee there. To the larger issue though, this could be a bad business decision for them. For the life of me I cannot understand why they - as a corporation - cannot say something like "We at ____________ (insert corporation name here) will continue to treat our customers and employees with dignity and respect" and just leave it at that. For Pete's sake - they're corporations. They exist to make money - period. Not to be our "morality police." Blessings, -Ed

‘Disgusting:’ McDonald’s introduces ‘gay pride’ fries, Christians call for boycott WASHINGTON, D.C., June 15, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- For Gay Pride month, McDonald’s franchises in San Francisco and in the nation’s capital are issuing “Pride Fries” in rainbow-colored containers. “The rainbow fry boxes are a fun way to show our support of the LGBTQ community, using one of McDonald’s most iconic and recognizable items,” Cathy Martin of the restaurant corporation’s “Pride Network” stated in a press release. She added that McDonald’s is “proud to honor and celebrate the LGBTQ community, including our employees, customers and beyond – each and every day.” McDonald's is acknowledged as a corporate leader in homosexual affirming and enabling policies. As OneNewsNow reports, “The Golden Arches is a major player and sponsor in promoting homosexual behavior across the nation.” McDonald’s franchises in the D.C. area are also big sponsors of the homosexual group Capital Pride Alliance, which seeks to normalize homosexual practices across the country. The fast food behemoth, which raked in $25 billion last year, supports the 2017 Capital Pride parade theme, “Lovin’ Is Lovin,” to show gay support. The theme is apparently a take-off of McDonald’s popular “I’m Lovin’ It” commercial tagline. Not all customers are happy with the gay fries. Evangelist and online personality Joshua Feuerstein issued a call for Christians to boycott the fast food chain. “DISGUSTING! McDonald’s released their RAINBOW FRIES today in honor of GAY PRIDE!” Feuerstein wrote to his 2 million followers. “I’m tired of corporations trying to influence our families like this,” Feuerstein continued. “SHARE THIS and let people know to STOP EATING at McDonalds!” “Plus, their food is crap. Really,” the evangelist added.

I don't know how this is going to turn out. Neither do you, or anyone else. Consider however if this were a democrat administration with the same set of circumstances. Would our Christian prayers be more - or less - likely to be effective? I suggest we put aside our Trump bashing for a moment and just pray and let God work His will. Blessings, -Ed

Thank you for posting this. I will be praying that logic and common sense prevails, and that these folks will be allowed to stay. Blessings, -Ed