SavedByGrace1981

And since he's McConnell's pick, he would make a fine demopublican. Or republicrat. Take your pick. As I've read more about this, I'm seeing Steve Bannon's name pop up. That gives me an 'aha' moment. If this is indeed a political hit job (we'll never know for sure), then it could be a pre-emptive strike by the R branch swamp creatures to destroy Bannon and any candidates he may be backing in the future. After all, Bannon has not been updated to Trump ver. 2.0 yet - he's still at Trump ver. 1.0 Blessings, -Ed

Me neither. Blessings, -Ed

If this is indeed a made up charge, then yes. Again, only he and the accuser (and God) knows that for sure. However, as a Christian, Judge Moore (if the charges are true) had better be more concerned about God's opinion and do the right thing. I'm not sure how politics works in Alabama, but I heard last night that it's too late to reprint the ballots - so I'm not sure what would happen if Moore stepped aside. People would (I assume) have to write in another candidate. The gop(e) might go all out and instruct the voters to 'write-in' the name of their preferred candidate or (to save money) they might just sit it out and let the democrat be elected. In the end, it's the same difference. Blessings, -Ed

Unfortunately, we don't know (and probably will never know for sure) if the allegations are false. If they are true (only God, the accuser, and Moore himself know if they are), he should do the right thing and step aside. The timing of this bombshell, however, is suspicious. The man has been in public life forever and has powerful enemies. One would think that this would have come out before now. One other thing - this provides a good opportunity for self-assessment. Ask yourself - what was your first reaction when you heard of it? Did it depend on your political outlook? I know it is a question I have asked myself. The correct and I believe Christian reaction is disgust that this sort of thing goes on; and then to keep an open mind and question the validity of the accuser since, after all, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And let's be fair - that second part applies to (or should apply to) EVERYONE all across the political spectrum. Blessings, -Ed

I'm sure that makes her eminently qualified for that office. The only downside is likely the folks in San Francisco asking "Why not us?" Blessings, -Ed

I stand corrected EDIT: although I was aware that that those coming in under this program were not 'illegals'. I see that I put 'illegals' in my original post instead of 'immigrants'. I'm going to have to fire my editor. Unless you think that entry into the US is akin to winning a game show, awarding immigration based solely on the luck of the draw is absurd. I was not aware of the program before the loser in Manhattan made his presence known - had I been, I would have called for its termination then. Blessings, -Ed

Security is a good idea - if not for herself, at least for her cat . . . Did Hillary Clinton Order a Kitten Caper? Blessings, -Ed

I knew that - but putting it in their 'name' doesn't necessarily make it so. In my opinion, they're about as 'fascist' as one can get. Blessings, -Ed

Good post! Preach it, brother! Blessings, -Ed

Good question. Answer: many more. While I understand (and agree with to a point) the desire to not have the government scrutinize any one particular religion, at some point it becomes a suicide pact. Clearly the status-quo it not working. 'Profiling' has become a bad word - but if this problem is ever going to be addressed in a serious manner, then some kind of profiling has to take place. 90 year old Swedish grandmothers in wheelchairs are not your typical 'terrorist'; yet much time and resources are wasted searching them and others at airports. Islam gets a pass because it is a religion. But it is also a political movement. As such, its violent or terrorist adherents could be profiled on that basis. There is, after all, historical precedence for scrutinizing people - Communists; anarchists; etc. - who pose a danger to the country. Until we do that, the pleas of the Cuomos and the DeBlasios to 'say something if you see something' are just platitudes that will fall on deaf ears. Blessings, -Ed

Please explain why you believe the Antifa crowd is against fascism. Blessings, -Ed

Did anyone ever consider what it might have been like to have something like CNN during WWII? "Banzai" is just a friendly greeting . . . "Sieg Heil" means "we love everybody . . . " Of course, back then CNN wouldn't have been too popular since American journalists actually rooted for Americans. I guess they were just funny that way. Blessings, -Ed

Uh oh. This latest atrocity (in a continuing series, unfortunately) has exposed this brilliant scheme of the ruling class to award entrance to the country via a cockamamie 'diversity' lottery. The deplorables weren't supposed to know about it. The cat's out of the bag. Now what? Since past behavior is a good predictor of future behavior, here is what I think we can expect from the establishment: (remember, the 'non-negotiable' in all this is open borders/unlimited immigration. That goal will always advance, it shall not be infringed.) 1. Deflection (change the topic). 2. Accusation of ______________ (fill in the blank with pejorative of the day - racism, bigotry, islamaphobia, homophobia(?), misogyny, etc.) 3. The need for more restrictions on freedom (rental truck control, anyone?) Even with all that, the absurdity of the diversity lottery scheme may be impossible for the elites to defend - so they may (after much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth) be forced to give it up. Since they never really 'give up' anything however, there will a price for those of us expecting sanity in immigration laws to pay. Perhaps the 50,000 illegals the ruling class loses on the free lottery side will turn into an additional 100,000 they can put into some kind of super-duper comprehensive immigration reform. I'm sure John McCain would sponsor such a bill. Blessings, -Ed

I heard he was a Trump supporter - otherwise, he probably would have. Blessings, -Ed

The minor quibble I have with this article is the lumping of many people with very diverse viewpoints and agendas under the banner of "The Left." If we're ever going to have a rational political dialogue on anything (perhaps a vain hope), we need to begin at least by having a willingness to go 'into the weeds' and dig beyond the labels and headlines. I say it's a minor quibble and I'd rather not focus on it. Suffice it to say that I'll stipulate that there are some "on the Left" who are two-dimensional political caricatures. They simply wait to see Trump's reaction to any given issue and automatically take the opposite view. Let's just agree to dismiss these hacks out of hand. That leaves some then (not necessarily all on The Left) that have reservations about automatically giving more power to government agencies. As a conservative/libertarian (small L), I don't automatically say don't give the agency the power; I just think it should be done with caution. I have a problem with giving 'all powerful' government a blank check on anything. We survived Abraham Lincoln taking extra-constitutional steps during the Civil War. We even survived FDR throwing AMERICAN CITIZENS (of Japanese descent) into internment camps during WWII. It was argued then that these were national crisis' - and enhanced measures were appropriate and called for. Now it is said we're once again (post 9/11) in a 'national crisis.' We hear cries once again for extra-Constitutional measures to be taken. Again - some of these measures may be appropriate and called for - but the discussion at least needs to take place. The difference today vs. the previous mentioned 'crisis' ' is the level of cynicism and mistrust in anything 'government'. Many are of the mindset that any 'freedoms' - once they are 'temporarily' given up - will be gone forever. I believe that is a valid concern. Blessings, -Ed

Or . . . it could be a big buildup for nothing. I've followed politics long enough to think this could happen: You have two 'protect at all costs' politicians - Hillary and Obama. I'm extremely skeptical that the establishment will allow anything to come out about either of them that would damage The State. Blessings, -Ed

Saw this pic in my wanderings today - this looks like the right place to post it: Blessings, -Ed

Court striking it down in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . Blessings, -Ed

Wasn't he kind of a John McCain puppet? Did he and McCain ever vote differently? Blessings, -Ed

Would Senator Flake (or someone) PLEASE tell us what those core principles are? Blessings, -Ed

Wow - I agree! One of the interesting things about political discussions is 'what-if' scenarios. Unfortunately, we can never prove them, so they remain as just speculation. Anyway, here's one: For years, some election cycles have had strong 3rd party candidates. My political memory goes all the way back to 1968 when George Wallace ran as a 3rd party candidate. (he did carry some southern states, i think.) Most of the time, they're not a factor and we forget their names. Sometimes however they do have an effect. (like Ross Perot back in the 90s) Your mentioning Ron Paul made me think of this. I think to a degree what we are seeing with Trump is what we would see if a 3rd party candidate did somehow ever manage to win the office of POTUS. Any 3rd party candidate would meet the same level of resistance from the establishment that Trump is seeing. They just wouldn't be as entertaining. Blessings, -Ed

Blessings, -Ed

Blessings, -Ed

Blessings, -Ed

From what I understand, Bannon's strategy is to 'primary' many of the establishment gop candidates for Congress that are up for re-election. Presumably the primary candidates would be anti-establishment. Perhaps we'll get a preview of how successful this will be in December - the election for the vacant Senate seat in Alabama. The interesting thing is that D. Trump backed Mitch's (and the gop establishment's) candidate - but that candidate lost to the upstart Roy Moore (I don't know if Bannon backed Moore or not, but Moore is definitely anti-establishment). I suspect the gop(e) will at the least withhold funds from Moore; and it possibly will support the D nominee. If, somehow, Moore prevails it will be a big boost to Bannon's strategy. Blessings, -Ed