SavedByGrace1981

I'll have to admit, considering this is coming from Jimmy Carter, that is surprising. Good for him. Blessings, -Ed

This article is from right of center National Review. The only coverage I've seen of this so far is from other 'suspect' sources - Fox News, etc. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it won't be covered by CBSNBCABCCNNMSNBCWASHPOSTNYTIMES (of if it is, it will be given the 'Benghazi' treatment.) Down the memory hole it goes. Blessings, -Ed

It did not surprise me at all. The entire Bush family is establishment to the core. That includes open borders and unlimited illegal immigration. Of course he has more in common with B. Obama than with D. Trump. Blessings, -Ed

A NY Times article from 10 years ago: When Former Presidents Assail the Chief Blessings, -Ed

No - I clearly stated that I do not trust the Bush family. My distrust goes all the way back to GHW Bush and has nothing to do with Trump. The world did not begin with Mr. Trump, and it will not end with him. Sorry. Blessings, -Ed

Jesse Jackson, a man I disagree with 99.9 percent of the time, did say something at the 2000 democrat convention that was very wise: "Stay out da Bushes!!" I've never trusted the Bush family, and I never will. Blessings, -Ed

If HBO wasn't so left wing, it would have a natural for a new mini-series: Blessings, -Ed

I wonder if the 9th US Circuit will weigh in and declare it unconstitutional? (yeah, I know it's not their jurisdiction - but they should chime in anyway to demonstrate their superiority) Blessings, -Ed

There are many potential ways that a journalist could have used to describe a group such as the "Value Voters Summit" - 'conservative', 'traditional values' or others. In saner times, a term like 'hate group' would be reserved for neo-nazis or klansmen. The fact that this Newsweek journalist chose to use it here (and Newsweek and Yahoo chose to not edit it) says more about them than it does about the president or any of those in that group. It's an over-reach, and all it does is diminish the word hate. Blessings, -Ed

FBI Forced to Admit It Has 30 Pages of Clinton-Lynch Tarmac Meeting Documents BY DEBRA HEINE OCTOBER 13, 2017 The FBI has been forced to admit that it has 30 documents pertaining to that June 2016 meeting between Bill Clinton and former attorney general Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix, after originally claiming to have no such documents. (That seems like a lot of docs for a chance, innocuous meeting about grandkids and golf, doesn't it?) The FBI admitted to having the Clinton-Lynch tarmac docs only after conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch caught the bureau hiding them in another lawsuit. The FBI is asking for six weeks to produce the documents. The new docs are being sent to Judicial Watch in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. According to the watchdog group, the bureau originally informed them that they were not able to locate any records related to the tarmac meeting, but in a related case, the Justice Department located emails about the meeting in which the DOJ had communicated with the FBI. As a result, the FBI on August 10, 2017, stated: “Upon further review, we subsequently determined potentially responsive documents may exist. As a result, your [FOIA] request has been reopened….” On June 27, 2016, then-Attorney General Lynch had a private meeting with former president Bill Clinton on board a parked private plane at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona. The meeting occurred during the final weeks of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server, and the day before the the House Select Committee on Benghazi released its long-awaited report publicizing an array of deceptions, miscues, and blunders on behalf of former secretary of state Clinton and the Obama administration. Judicial Watch says its case "forced the FBI to release to the public the FBI’s Clinton investigative file, although more than half of the records remain withheld." There is mounting evidence that the FBI and Obama Justice Department gave Clinton and other witnesses and potential targets preferential treatment during their investigations. Judicial Watch pointed to the numerous immunity agreements that went nowhere. The Obama administration extended numerous immunity agreements, including: Clinton’s former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills; John Bentel, former director of the State Department’s Office of Information Resources Management; Heather Samuelson, Clinton’s executive assistant; Brian Pagliano, an IT employee at the State Department who serviced the Clinton non-government server; and an employee at Platt River Networks, the company that maintained it. It is not clear whether Hillary Clinton received some type of immunity. In 2015, a political action committee run by McAuliffe, a close friend and political supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton, donated nearly $500,000 to Jill McCabe, wife of McCabe, who was then running for the Virginia State Senate. Also, the Virginia Democratic Party, over which McAuliffe had significant influence, donated an additional $207,788 to the Jill McCabe campaign. In July 2015, Andrew McCabe was in charge of the FBI’s Washington, DC, field office, which provided personnel resources to the Clinton email probe. Judicial Watch has several lawsuits about this McCabe/FBI/Clinton scandal. “The FBI is out of control. It is stunning that the FBI ‘found’ these Clinton-Lynch tarmac records only after we caught the agency hiding them in another lawsuit,” stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch will continue to press for answers about the FBI’s document games in court. In the meantime, the FBI should stop the stonewall and release these new records immediately.” "This is a scandal," Fitton said in a video update on the case. "I think the FBI was hiding these documents and we only just caught them because of this other lawsuit. We've got to have them released as quickly as possible." https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/10/13/fbi-forced-admit-30-pages-clinton-lynch-tarmac-meeting-documents/

Brave passengers board last ever Flight 666 to HEL on Friday the 13th Mark Molloy 13 OCTOBER 2017 • 2:49PM Fearless flyers will laugh in the face of superstition today when they board the last ever Flight 666 to HEL on Friday the 13th. Travelling on the “unluckiest day of the year” could save you some pounds, but a journey straight to HEL on the 13th hour of the superstitious date is one flight most would probably like to avoid. Nordic airline Finnair has flown brave passengers from Copenhagen, Denmark, to Helsinki, Finland, on Friday the 13th since 2006. However, today will be the last time Flight 666 flies to Hel, as the airline has decided to retire the flight number. “Today will actually be the final time that our AY666 flight flies to HEL,” a spokesperson for the airline said. “As of October 29, some of our flight numbers in our network will change and our AY666 flight from Copenhagen to Helsinki will change to AY954. “In 11 years, we’ve flown 21 times the AY666 flight to HEL on Friday the 13th.” Thankfully, veteran pilot Juha-Pekka Keidasto says he is not superstitious or scared about flying on Friday the 13th. “It has been quite a joke among the pilots,” he said previously. “I'm not a superstitious man. It's only a coincidence for me. “If there's some passenger who is anxious about this 666, our cabin crew is always happy to help them.” Flight 666 is set to depart from the Danish capital at 1:20pm and is scheduled to arrive in Helsinki shortly before 4pm. But why is Friday the 13th considered to be so unlucky? It has biblical origins and also been linked to the Knights Templar. The most frightening airport codes Psychologists have even come up with a word for a fear of Friday the 13th – paraskavedekatriaphobia. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/13/brave-passengers-board-last-ever-flight-666-hel-friday-13th/

Some, perhaps. Others - like myself - see it as just another diversion. POTUS has no power over the press or the First Amendment. The media was and is currently in a full blown meltdown over its hypocrisy regarding the Weinstein fiasco. Too bad Mr. Trump had to step all over it. Blessings, -Ed

Harvey Weinstein Provides Further Proof that Hollywood Hates God BY JOHN ELLIS OCTOBER 8, 2017 The story of Harvey Weinstein's abuse of women has been dominating the news cycle. Weinstein, co-founder of the famed Miramax studio and, until this week, co-chairman of the Weinstein Company, has been accused of sexual harassment by woman after woman. The accusations aren't new revelations; Hollywood has known for years that Weinstein treats women as if they exist solely for his enjoyment. Of course, Hollywood hasn't cared, because it has a history of treating women as if they exist solely for the enjoyment of men. I can't help but wonder how many Christians will nod in agreement with the previous statement while surfing through Netflix to find a movie to watch. On one level, that's fine. As hard as this may be to believe, especially considering this current article and the many, many other anti-pop culture articles that I've written, I'm not opposed to movies or pop culture, in general. I am opposed to Christians denying the reality that pop culture is actively engaged in a war against their Savior. The denial of that reality allows Christians to excuse their interaction with pop culture in a manner that is unthinking, hypocritical, and dishonoring to Jesus. To the great delight of my friends, I was recently called a "Victorian scold" in the comment section on one of my recent PJ Media articles. I happily accept the charge and ask, "more, please?" You see, as the Holy Spirit has grown me in the faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ, I have become increasingly concerned with the fascination that many of my brothers and sisters in Christ have with pop culture. Stealing the words of a great man of God who lived 500 years ago, "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me." I will continue to use the platforms God has given me to call Christians to repentance over their blind acceptance of pop culture. Leftist men like Harvey Weinstein are constantly making my case for me. Hollywood hates God. Others have written about the obvious hypocrisy coursing through this whole Weinstein mess. And they're correct. Add in the LA Times story this past week about how a fourth woman has come forward accusing revered director Roman Polanski of rape, the hero worship of pornographer and serial objectifier of women Hugh Hefner, and the continued fascination with violent rape scenes in movies, and it's not difficult to be disgusted by the hypocrisy of an industry that pretends to promote feminism—while being feted by the D.C. power players on the left. In fact, that's the article I originally wanted to write. SPONSORED As I thought about it, though, I realized that the bigger story for me is how this illustrates the degrading, immoral, anti-human industry Hollywood is, and the sad reality that many Christians refuse to acknowledge Hollywood as deeply antithetical to their faith. Hollywood is an industry that has, throughout its entire history and without any evidence of slowing down anytime soon, brazenly splashed their rebellion against the Creator of the universe across the movie and TV screens of this nation. And it's an industry that makes much of its money from professing Christians who love to be entertained. Tragically, it often appears as if few Christians actually weigh the content and worldview of the pop culture they love against the tenets and commands of their faith. Apparently, in the minds of many Christians, God understands when His command to pursue holiness takes a backseat to an entertaining TV show or movie. After all, Paul's command in Romans 12:2 is better translated "be not conformed to this world — unless you found a show you want to binge-watch." Right? The thing is, Christians generally hold ourselves to a higher standard of holiness when interacting with broader culture. Conservative Christians make much of God's parameters for sex. We denounce same-sex marriage and transgenderism. We condemn pornography and are involved in organizations that provide aid to sex-workers and those who are victims of the sex-trafficking industry, and the two groups often overlap. We cluck at and apply church discipline to those who are caught in adultery. All rightly so. However, how many of us who condemn sex-trafficking and the exploitation of women by the porn industry consume movies and TV shows that exploit the naked bodies of actresses? Make no mistake, Harvey Weinstein and his producer buddies know that nudity is a selling point. Repeating myself ad nauseam (I've written this point over and over, and many Christians seemingly don't get it), Sport's Illustrated'sSwimsuit Issue isn't the magazine's largest selling issue because men like "reading" it for the articles. Likewise, men (and women) like movies and TV shows with nudity and sex scenes because it feeds their lust. We condemn Weinstein for his sexual harassment — for things like asking actresses to audition in a bikini. We recognize the exploitation in that. Yet, in the very next instance, we turn on a TV show in which an actress is required to put her body on display for the enjoyment of an unseen audience. And that actress is literally nude — she's not acting. Christians recognize that adultery is a sin before God, yet we laugh along with comedies that treat sex outside of marriage as normal and something good that should be desired. We deny that the very shows we binge watch normalize sinful behavior. We defend watching and enjoying the presentation of sin as our "Christian liberty," and label anyone who calls us to pursue holiness through our entertainment options a legalist. Sadly, many Christians love their entertainment more than they love holiness. And, yes, sometimes those two things — entertainment and holiness — are mutually exclusive. Harvey Weinstein's behavior isn't an exception in Hollywood; it's the norm. An industry that openly rebels against God's standards of holiness is not an industry that Christians should defend or seek to find common ground with. https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/10/08/harvey-weinstein-provides-proof-hollywood-hates-god/

Hmmm . . . I wonder if anyone on so-called right wing talk radio or FNC opined - when the homosexual night club was hit in Orlando - "well, they were likely hillary voters/democrats" Perhaps someone did - I just did - but in my case it was brought on by this case. I don't normally 'go there' in cases like this. Blessings, -Ed

Chuck Schumer to the cameras/microphones ranting that "republicans want to starve grandma and kill children" in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . John McCain to the cameras/microphones ranting "bipartisanship!!! - do whatever Chuckie wants" in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . Lindsay Graham to the cameras/microphones ranting "I'll second whatever John McCain said" in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . And on it goes . . . Blessings, -Ed

Bucking the System BY FULL MEASURE STAFF SUNDAY, OCTOBER 1ST 2017 Bucking the System Today we begin with an extraordinary interview with a sitting member of Congress. It will make you mad but it's something you should hear. Republican Ken Buck is speaking out of school about the shocking, transactional nature of Washington politics. About party elites he says, "live like kings and govern like bullies." And he's lifting the curtain on why he says nothing gets done in Congress, describing collusion between Democrats and Republicans to fleece taxpayers on behalf of special interests. Rep. Ken Buck: The game here is not to take a tough vote. Nobody wants to take a tough vote, Democrats and Republicans, there’s a quiet conspiracy going on that ‘If you don’t make me take a tough vote I won’t make you take a tough vote.’ A “tough vote,” says Congressman Ken Buck, means anything that cuts spending or programs that benefit political and corporate interests. Rep. Buck: And the result is that the ability to cut federal programs or to reduce spending in other ways, or to get our tax structure under control- simplify the tax structure is very, very difficult. And that results in higher spending. He says it’s why Congress consistently spends wildly more money than it receives from taxpayers: six hundred billion dollars last year alone. Why the federal debt has been allowed to balloon to record levels: the U.S. owes about $20 trillion dollars it doesn’t have on hand. Sharyl Attkisson: Is there an element of that Democrats and Republicans may appear to disagree with things in public and yet privately agree because sometimes they cater to the same interests? Rep. Buck: Sure, I think Democrats and Republicans disagree on some social issues and make a big deal out of that, and disagree on some other major issues. But for the most part, there’s agreement behind-the-scenes not to make waves and to get things done quietly. Not good things, but things that involve spending more money. If I scratch your back you’ll scratch my back. Sharyl Attkisson: Is what you describe what some Americans might call ‘the establishment’? Rep. Buck: Absolutely. The ‘establishment’ are the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership getting along and pretending not to. But clearly getting along. A former federal prosecutor, Buck has been in Congress less than three years. He says his education from Washington D.C.’s school of hard knocks began right after his election during his orientation trip to the Capitol. Rep. Buck: And that’s when a lot of the rules were explained to us about the dues to the NRCC other requirements. He was stunned, he says, to find the NRCC-- the National Republican Congressional Committee-- just like its counterpart for Democrats, requires hefty party dues, especially if members hope to aspire to meaningful positions. Rep. Paul Ryan: Talk about a record $30.1 million right here in this room. Give yourself a big round of applause. Rep. Buck: It’s mildly offensive to think that to serve on a committee in Congress you need to pay a private political organization dues, and that’s what they were asking for. Sharyl Attkisson: Did you have any idea before you were elected that that was the case? Rep. Buck: I did not know that there were mandatory dues here, no. Sharyl Attkisson: How did they tell you? Rep. Buck: Ah, well it’s not a big secret. They have a big chart in the National Republican Congressional Committee offices, and you can see everybody’s name and the dues that they owe and how much they’ve paid. Sharyl Attkisson: What was going through your mind when you started to hear this news? Rep. Buck: Well, as Freshmen we have to raise $200,000 and that’s a lot of money. You know I just finished campaigning and raising money, and now I had to go back to donors and ask them for money again. Buck reveals the unwritten rules and outlines the allegations in his book: “Drain the Swamp: How Washington Corruption is Worse than You Think.” Rep. He says to meet fundraising quotas, members of Congress spend hour upon hour of public work time asking for money from the very interests they’re supposed to oversee, ending up beholden to them instead of the public at large. Sharyl: For people who really have no idea how things work up here, can you tell us how the special interests and corporate interests, for example, actually influence members? How does that happen? Rep. Buck: It starts with committee assignments. If you’re on the transportation and infrastructure committee, the transportation bill will come before your committee and all over town there will be receptions and the members on the transportation committee will be invited to those receptions, expected to attend those receptions and receive donations as a result of that. They know the easy money, the low-hanging fruit, is gonna be at receptions that are given right before a major piece of legislation goes to committee. Everything is called ‘across the street’ because at the Capitol behind me, you can’t accept money there. You can’t give money there, but once you walk across the street then the bags open up. Sharyl Attkisson: Restaurants around here? Rep. Buck: Restaurants, the Republicans, the Capitol Hill Club has a lot of different receptions and dinners. Industries paying for those receptions and dinners include tobacco, telecommunications, pharmaceutical, TV broadcasting, beer and wine, defense and Hollywood. Democrats have their own fundraising hangout nearby: The National Democratic Club. Rep. Buck: I’ve attended receptions where I’ve had 10, 12 corporations represented and they have made their case to me on why they need me to vote a certain way on a piece of legislation. And I know that if I accommodate them, I will have a reception later on where they will support me. Sharyl Attkisson: You’re describing an entire system where almost every consideration that ought to be for constituents is instead about special interests and corporate interests and donations. Rep. Buck: It surprised me when I got here and I’ve been involved in politics since I was a teenager, and getting to this place is really shocking. To see the influence that money has in politics. Early on, Buck challenged GOP leadership on a vote he felt would give President Obama too much power on trade issues. Republican leaders retaliated by trying to oust him as president of his freshman class. But he went on a public offensive and survived. He says he’s watched colleagues get punished for doing what they think is right instead of what party bosses demand; booted from committee positions and even denied dining room privileges. Rep. Buck: The incentive structure right now is to vote for more money. You never vote for less money, because someone’s gonna get mad if you vote for less money. And so as long as the American public doesn’t stand up and demand that members of Congress are accountable, Congress will continue acting the way it does. Sharyl Attkisson: Do you think a lot of people come to Washington really hoping it will be different and planning to work for their constituents and just find out it can’t be done? Buck: I absolutely think most members come here with the best intentions. And I think within a year or two they realize that there is no hope of changing this place. And a lot of them leave fairly early on. Others become disillusioned and some others just settle into the swamp and enjoy it. Sharyl Attkisson: I’ve not heard another sitting member of Congress talk about these things. What happens to you now because of this? Buck: You know I didn’t come here with any friends, Sharyl, and I’m not leaving with any friends and I’m okay with that. I didn’t come here to make friends. And so, if I’m gone in a couple of years, I did what I came here to do and that’s hopefully make Americans aware that this place is broken. Buck says solutions include requiring a balanced budget meaning Congress wouldn't be able to spend more money than it has and they'd be forced to make the tough choices they now avoid and term limits to restrict the number of years people can serve in Congress. http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/bucking-the-system

I think Reagan was a 'delegator' compared to, say, Jimmy Carter - a micro-manager. Reagan had a lot of people around him who weren't really conservative. Both styles of management have their strengths and weaknesses. I think Reagan was loved by conservatives because he was a 'visionary' and, as an actor, a lot of what he said and did touched our emotions and feelings. For instance, I still remember his speech, after the Challenger disaster: ". . . [they] slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God . . . " It still gives me chills. But yes - you're right in that when you look closely, especially at the economics, you see flaws. That's why I listed his part in ending the so-called 'cold war.' He did it mainly by in effect bankrupting the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, we were almost bankrupted at the same time. And even that, over time, has been overshadowed by the endless 'war on terror' we now find ourselves fighting. In hindsight, some aspects of the old 'cold war' don't look so bad. Blessings, -Ed

Maybe that was YOUR lightbulb moment. Blessings, -Ed

I don't have the stats in front of me, but I've always understood that most of the people who go into politics are lawyers. The most influential ones are the products of the most 'prestigious' law schools, the Harvards', Yales', etc. Given the ideology of those institutions, it is not hard to discern the political ideology of their graduates. It is an open question however as to whether or not ideology motivates them. Regardless of whether or not ideology is the driving force, I will agree that after a period of time it gives way to pragmatism. That is where corners are cut, values are compromised, and corruption begins. I think it's important here to draw a distinction between those IN government and those activists whose role it is to simply support those in government. While I believe there are few actual ideologues IN government, the same does not hold true for those of us on the sidelines. We saw the examples of the present day "Left" pointed out in the OP. While I disagreed that the new Left is liberal in the classic sense, I think it is correct to say the ideology of Marxism - in some cases totalitarianism - is driving it. We see it in the riots, the crackdown on free speech, and the general anarchy it seems to promote. When and if it doesn't get its way, it turns on a dime on the government apparatchiks like the Pelosis and Schumers who are ostensibly on its side. On the flip side of the new 'Left' is, of course, the new 'Right.' As a member of said group (for the sake of this discussion; I don't align with all things 'right'), I can only speak for myself when I say I never expected a utopia to arrive here on this earth (until The Lord returns, anyway). I probably took some literary excess using the term utopia. But when voting for a candidate I usually bought the argument that we have to vote a certain way - if only to get 'our justices' on the courts. The 'golden ring' was of course the Supreme Court. Some of us live long enough to have a 'lightbulb moment'. Mine came in June of 2012 when John Roberts - a 'good' 'conservative' 'originalist' justice; appointed by 'conservative' George W. Bush no less; went ahead and upheld the Unconstitutional train wreck a.k.a. Obamacare. It was then that I knew for certain the fix was in. My eyes were, as they say, opened. The new 'Right' shares one thing with its counterpart - the propensity to turn on those gov't officials who it feels 'betrays' them. That's why we see the hatred directed at the Ryans and the McConnells who are supposed to be on 'our' side. Even though these men are no more ideological than Pelosi or Schumer. Which brings me to the other wild card in this discussion - one that hasn't been mentioned yet. It relates to a metaphor I've used in the past. I call it 'water in my basement'. Having water in my basement is the default condition. If I do nothing, I'm going to have water in my basement. There may be perhaps 100 ways for water to get in my basement. If I only correct 99 of them, guess what - I'm going to have water in my basement. Likewise, 'liberalism' (not the classic; the statist) is the default condition of government. It is the one that takes no courage, no values. It is the easiest. Government, when left to its own devices, will grow, become corrupt, and devolve toward totalitarianism. Fighting statism/liberalism is an uphill battle - one that is replete with slings and arrows. It is just simply too tough for most and, like the water in my basement, fighting it successfully requires getting 100 out of 100 correct. That brings me back to my point about ideologues in government (the few there are.) They are rare, but over the last half century we've had what I would call two ideological presidents - Reagan (from the Right) and Obama (Left). While Reagan was generally adored by conservatives, he was hated by the establishment of that time. Therefore, his accomplishments - while notable - were limited. His greatest - a part in ending the 'cold war' - has been overshadowed by an endless ill-defined 'war against terror'. So even that accomplishment has been reduced. In short, Reagan's ideology did not mesh with the ideology of raw power and control of the global uni-party/establishment. Over time it's been chipped away at and, as a result, he truly does not have a lasting legacy. The Reagan presidency has turned out to be just a speed bump on the road to the all powerful global government the elites desire. Obama's Marxist ideology and its goals, on the other hand, does agree and dovetail with the goals of the global establishment. To close the loop on the metaphor - Reagan was bailing water from the basement; Obama was manning the hose, filling it. Blessings, -Ed

While it's true that God sees all sin as SIN, you have a point when you say that the Church or even some Christians may tend to grade some sins more severely than others. But that's on the Church or those Christians. That's not God's plan nor His desire for us to do that. In God's eyes, those afflicted by the sin of LGBT must do the same things as the rest of us afflicted by any other sin: 1. Recognize we are sinners in need of a Savior. 2. Repent of our sins - "Go and sin no more." One of my favorite old sayings: "The ground is level at the foot of the Cross." Blessings, -Ed

All that may be true, and I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise since word meanings change over time. But the larger point I'm making is for the most part ideology does not matter. Think about it - if I'm a peasant living under a totalitarian system, does it matter to me whether the regime calls itself a fascist or a Marxist one? Each have elements like secret police and thought crimes. Each are the antithesis of what our gov't purports to be, yet it is the direction to which our gov't is going. For years we've been under the illusion that there is a schism between left and right - liberal vs. conservative. It makes for exciting TV and newsworthy political conventions. We get to cheer for 'our side' and say we'll get 'utopia' when 'our side' prevails. But it's Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football. - perfection is 'just that close', but somehow it never arrives. We're being played for fools. The 'two sides' are really joined at the hip. I contend most politicians are not ideologues (previous POTUS excepted). Best case - they are shill politicians or bureaucrats; worst case they are tyrants and thugs. But they all share a lust for power and self promotion. Not statesmanship. Blessings, -Ed

The present day Left - as the author describes it - is anything but liberal. I'm not sure when the label 'liberal' became a bad word (Bush vs. Dukakis maybe?), but being a classic liberal was not a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson was what I would call a classic liberal. The whole concept of government of the people, by the people and for the people is a liberal one. Would that we HAD liberals in today's government - we don't. Ideologies such as liberalism and conservatism have little to do with how the government runs or who controls is. Schumer and Pelosi are not really liberals - they are simply apparatchiks. They have no ideology beyond staying in power and fleecing the taxpayers. One can say the same for those faux conservatives on the 'other side' like McCain, Ryan and McConnell. Trump certainly is not a ideologue (even his army of critics admit that). The present day left - while its more extreme elements do promote chaos and anarchy - has about as much relevance in the greater scheme of things as the present day right. And the labels only serve the purposes of the uni-party to keep us divided and bickering at one another. Blessings, -Ed

If 'hatred' was your motivation for speaking against the LGBTQ anything, then you were indeed wrong and it is good that the Holy Spirit convicted you of that. But please do not fall into the trap that the world has set by labeling saying anything counter to the homosexual agenda as 'hate.' We are on the verge - in this country - of following Canada's lead in calling many passages of Scripture hate speech. We are in Orwellian territory, indeed. Sin is sin - that is true. God hates it all, and our only hope is in Christ. But that said, I am not aware of any of the other categories of sins whose victims march in parades and demand special rights. Gossipers rights? Gluttons' parades? Adulterers' marches? Blessings, -Ed

Using his own money, maybe? Because Congress already funded it over 10 years ago, and it's still not built. I think 'The Wall' has become a symbol - a rallying cry - of frustration. The frustration at the gall of the ruling class to not even put up any effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Election cycles have come and gone. Politicians have made promise upon promise. As soon as they get to DC, however, their promises .become null and void. I'm not sure what President Trump's end game is in this. But he has to know that the wall is not going to be built. Blessings, -Ed