SavedByGrace1981

Sanders in the past has praised Cuba (communist), the USSR (communist) and Venezuela (communist). As I stated previously, he honeymooned in Moscow when it was the capital of the USSR. As to the merits of Socialism, I have stated my opinions and you have stated yours. We are just going to have to respectfully disagree on the subject. I will point out that neither New Zealand (nor any other socialist country you can name) is playing policeman to the world as the US is. We are running a 20+ trillion dollar debt partly because of that fact. And no matter how we vote, that fact never changes. That is all I am going to say on this topic. Otherwise, blessings to you and yours.

I don't agree with Bernie Sanders on just about anything political, but the point is apparently a large percentage of the Democratic party base does. Sanders is a true believer in Socialism/Communism, whereas the others (Biden, Warren. Buttigegg, et.al.) are mostly just panderers. Due to our rotten education system, the under 40's (the core of Sander's support) may not know how evil those systems are and ultimately why they do not work, but they can sense sincerity vs. insincerity. And Sanders (who honeymooned in Moscow) is certainly sincere in his misguided beliefs. It's funny in a way - the DNC/Mainstream media created this Frankenstein monster aka the democrat base, now they cannot control it. The radical base is the tail wagging the dog. But the DNC and its media allies know that the country is not quite ready for a Socialist/Communist president. Sanders, if he were to be the Democrat nominee, would lose badly to Donald Trump. That - I believe is why Bloomberg is being brought on the scene at this time. He represents the ruling class'es last hope.

Thank you so much for sharing, aiyn jade. You didn't say whether your cancer was found long ago or recently, but I can tell reliving it and retelling it was very difficult for you. You'll never know how much that means to me that you did. I of course will be praying for you. Even though my screen name is SavedByGraced 1981, I actually accepted the Lord in 1980. I just never had it changed - didn't seem important. Anyway, in those 40 years I've had the normal life experiences. Parents getting sick and ultimately dying, wife's mom dying, a brother and one sister dying (only one sibling left). With the Lord's strength and grace, I've gotten through all those. But by far this has been the ultimate test. But in my heart I know He will get me through it, too. In our 38 years of marriage, my wife Linda and I have had daily devotions in the morning. Some time around last December I began having feelings of foreboding during those times. This is not usual for me. But I felt the Lord was preparing me for something bad - something happening to one of our kids, grandkids or friends. I couldn't share any more with Linda because that's all I had. She may have even thought I was crazy (though she never said so.) So when the accident happened to me (and the four others) on July 15, I was actually somewhat relieved that this is what "that feeling" must have been about. BTW, one thing I forgot to share about the accident. Of the five of us, all of us sustained injuries to some degree, one other gentleman was and is paralyzed much as I am. He will never walk either. The three others suffered serious but lesser injuries. One more thing, and then I'll finish. As I said, the New York State Police are a fine organization. One of the few in NY state that one never hears a scandal about. Years ago, a good friend of mine went and tried out to be a trooper. He made it (and is still there to this day) That said, they are still made up of sinful, fallible human beings. As I said, I cannot say much more (due to ongoing litigation) except that the particular trooper who hit us was NOT responding to a call. He has been suspended without pay from the NYSP for distracted driving. That much is public domain knowledge, but one can use their imagination to decipher what distracted driving means. With that I'll close. Thanks again for sharing your most difficult story -Ed

Monday July 15 2019 started like any other workday. I worked part time for a major car rental company, driving rental cars between branches or to the airport. I usually worked on a crew with 4 or 5 other gentlemen. At 66 years old, I was actually one of the youngest. Most of the others were in their 70s. All of us were retired and looked at this minimum pay job as just something to do to get us out of the house. On this particular Monday 5 of us were in a minivan on the NY State thruway to pick up some cars in Jamestown and take them to the Buffalo airport. Myself and another gentleman were in the middle seats. We'd done this hour and a half drive so much that we were both sleeping.t The next thing I knew I'm in one of the worst amusement park rides I've ever been on. My ribs were hurting so bad I could barely breathe. I thought I was going to die. The first responders asked me to move so they could get to the guy in the backseat. That's when I first realized I couldn't move my legs. They got me out on a backboard, and the next thing I knew was being lifeflighted to Buffalo. I've been in hospitals and rehab centers up until Dec 24 when I came to live with my daughter and her family. We're (my wife and I) are having a house built which will be less than a mile from my daughter. We should be moved in some time in March. Because we have to take out a mortgage, my wife has had to continue to work. Since she lives 2 1/2 hours away, and given the winter weather, I haven't seen her as much as I would have liked. The accident was caused by a NY State trooper, who rammed into our stopped van at about 70 plus miles an hour. There is a lot about this accident that is public knowledge but I'll suffice it to say he has been suspended from the NYSP. Otherwise everything else is in litigation and I shouldn't comment. I do need prayer though in not being bitter toward him. My purpose in posting this is just for all of us who call ourselves Christians to be open to the possibility that life changing events like this can happen that challenge our faith. I'm as much a believer as I was before, but I'm not the same believer. Sometimes I feel sorry for myself: Lord, we had our retirement planned out - why did this have to happen. For one thing, we're going to have a huge mortgage, as to where our old house was paid off. But I trust the Lord and He knows what He's doing. Even when we don't. I'm never going to walk again, nor can I control my bowel and bladder. Life has definitely changed. I hope others will share similar experiences and we can encourage each other with that.

Amen, brother

Hello EdnaRuth, There are I believe many factors contributing to what we see going on right now. A general cynicism which began in the 60s and has deepened. Affluence (or the lack of dire economic circumstances for most people). An abundance of leisure time. A 24/7/365 news cycle that must be continually fed. The emergence of social media. These a just a few off the top of my head. If I had the time, I could think of many more. These and others are the perfect storm that's creating the chaos we see now. Being on the senior side of life, I remember presidents all the way back to JFK. (I can actually remember Eisenhower, but I wasn't 'politically aware' then, being I was very young.) That said, I think I have some perspective and have formed some conclusions based on what I've observed over the years. First off, though we on paper live in a Constitutional Republic, we've actually been under globalist influence since at least the end of WWII. If you think about it, it makes sense, at least in its beginnings. Given the horrors of WWII - with Nazism and Japanese Imperialism - it's logical the influential rich and powerful would want to prevent that from happening again. In a Republic such as ours (and in the Western European democracies as well), the most effective way to influence politics - policy - is though money. Like it or not, money is the life-blood of politics. So by funding certain campaigns and not funding others, policy is influenced and, if necessary, changed. Globalists (i.e. the uber-rich and powerful of the world), contrary to some conspiracy theories, do not meet in a super secret room somewhere and dance around a pentagram and sing hymns to Satan (I don't think so, anyway). They don't have to - their interests and what benefits them is the same. It's what unites them. Globalists - by definition - are "citizens of the world". They have no country. So throughout the latter part of the 20th and first decade and a half of the 21st centuries, globalists funded elections both here and abroad to get what they saw as their desired outcomes. In the US, they funded BOTH political parties. We the electorate were treated to a "kabuki theater" every 4 years called presidential elections. We were told sometimes "the world is going to end" if so and so is elected but deep down, the truth is "so and so" was receiving globalist funding as well so nothing was really going to change. All this was under the surface, however. To most people, none of this existed and things were what they were supposed to seem like. Talk about globalists and globalism was relegated to the lunatic fringe. Then came election night, 2016. One interesting thing about Donald Trump is that he is uber-rich - at least as rich as most of the globalists. If he would've just stayed in the background and kept quiet, then things could have gone "merrily" along. For reasons known only to him, he chose another direction. To backup some, though it may seem simplistic to some, globalism is to me the only thing that makes sense. It explains open borders with unlimited illegal immigration; it explains the numerous no-win wars we've been involved in since WWII: it explains the uninterrupted march toward big government, socialism and eventually Communism that we're seeing. Donald Trump is seen as a threat to the goals of globalism. That is why the level of hatred is directed toward him.

Well stated. I'm curious however about the first phrase I bolded, above: Is it your opinion that he was put in place by (for want of a better term) "the deep state"? If so, you and I may diverge slightly there but that's okay. In the end, all we hold are opinions which can not always be proven. I happen to think that Mr. Trump's election came as a surprise to (what I call) the ruling class. That to me is evidenced by the level of ferocity and hatred toward him exhibited by the entire D party, a sizable portion of the R party, and the entire mainstream media (save for Fox News and talk radio). Add to that the entertainment media and most of academia. I'm old enough to have lived through the Reagan and even the Nixon administrations. While those men were hated by the 'intelligentsia" as well (Nixon's wounds were largly self-inflicted due to his paranoia), I don't believe the hatred then was anywhere near the level we're seeing now. I liked what you wrote in the second phrase I bolded - I've pretty much said the same thing for years: "We're past the point where elections matter". Our founders were believers in IDEALS - not necessarily men. In fact, they knew how corruptible mankind was. They wanted no part of a "king" (i.e. a celebrity cult figure). The Constitution and the set of laws it put in place was supposed to prevent that. We were supposed to be a nation of laws; not men. But it really didn't last long. A litany of larger than life presidents attest to the fact that it seems to be a flaw of human nature to want to 'worship' men rather than ideals. One can argue that men like Lincoln, FDR, JFK, Reagan, Obama and now Trump did many positive (or negative) things. But some of these men did what they did contrary to The Constitution. And once the Constitution was breached the first time, it became easier and easier to ignore it when it suited an agenda. I used to comment frequently on politics; now, not so much. First I find few people beyond the "well, when MY guy (or gal) gets in, things will be different" variety. Or it's the "when my party wins" variation. Both parties (I refer to them as the 'D and R branches' of the ruling party) are corrupt. In fact, with few exceptions, I believe the entire government is corrupt. One needs to look no further than the size of the national debt. So, in my mind, thinking the government can be fixed by elections is akin to believing a rusted hulk of a car can be fixed by a coat of paint. Governments and nations and come and gone over the millennia - I suspect eventually the USA will follow suit. But that said, I (as a Christian) have Great Hope. And I - like you - believe that God has His plan and it is being worked out. PTL! Blessings, -Ed

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

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

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

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

Can someone please explain to me how this is not racist? Blessings, -Ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blessings, -Ed

Ok, I think I finally get it: Climate getting warmer = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE Climate getting cooler = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE Less precipitation = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE More precipitation = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE More hurricanes = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE Less hurricanes = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE More wildfires in California = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE More ice at poles = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE Less ice at poles = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE Steven Colbert being not funny = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE (Okay, that last one may be a stretch . . . ) But here's the real deal: More money and funding; more government; less freedom; more gloabalism = global warming CLIMATE CHANGE That's all you have to know. Blessings, -Ed

Climate change driving record snows in Alaskan mountains - study Reuters•December 19, 2017 BOSTON (Reuters) - Snowfalls atop an Alaskan mountain range have doubled since the start of the industrial age, evidence that climate change can trigger major increases in regional precipitation, according to research published in the journal Scientific Reports on Tuesday. The study by researchers from Dartmouth College, the University of Maine and the University of New Hampshire, shows modern snowfall levels in the Alaska Range at the highest in at least 1,200 years, averaging some 18 feet per year from around 8 feet per year from 1600-1840. Related SearchesMammoth Mountain Snow ConditionsClimate Change FactsWhat Is Climate ChangeGlobal Climate ChangeClimate Change Definition "We were shocked when we first saw how much snowfall has increased," said Erich Osterberg, an assistant professor of earth sciences at Dartmouth College and principal investigator for the research. "We had to check and double-check our results to make sure of the findings." The research was based on an analysis of two ice core samples collected at 13,000 feet from Mount Hunter in Alaska's Denali National Park. The study suggests that warming tropical oceans have driven the increased snowfall by strengthening the northward flow of warm, moist air. The research builds on a previous study using the same ice cores that showed an intensification of winter storm activity in Alaska and Northwestern Canada, driven by the same strengthening "Aleutian Low" system. "Everywhere we look in the North Pacific, we’re seeing this same fingerprint from warming tropical oceans," said Dominic Winski, a research assistant at Dartmouth and lead author of the report. "Wintertime climate in the North Pacific is very different than it was 200 years ago." Scientists have long concluded that carbon dioxide and other emissions from industry are driving planetary warming, leading to floods, droughts, and more frequent powerful storms. But researchers have only more recently begun detailing how climate change can boost regional precipitation patterns, in some cases with devastating consequences. A group of scientists led by non-profit scientific research group Climate Central published a report earlier this month saying climate change contributed significantly to rainfall from Hurricane Harvey, which flooded Houston in August and September and caused billions of dollars in damage. Every nation in the world except the United States has joined a global pact to fight climate change. President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement in June, saying it was too costly for the U.S. economy.

And in related news: Chick-fil-A broke from tradition and opened on a Sunday — and there's an incredible backstory Blessings, -Ed