unworthyservant

It is not my opinion. I asked a question. I have read the Executive Order and even quoted a part of it in this thread. The only thing that it mentions is Kreb's statement that "there was no credible evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election and stated his expert opinion that it did not exist". Thus the question, should someone be investigated by the DOJ for a crime when all they did was state the evidence and his professional expert opinion on that evidence? And BTW, you are badly mistaken that the Constitution does not apply to the DOJ or the Executive Branch in general and thus they do not need probable cause to start an investigation. Hate to burst your bubble but the same Constitution that applies to us applies to them as well. Might I suggest that you reread the 4th Amendment and all the Supreme Court rulings that have followed reiterating that the Government is subject to the Constitution in matters such as this.

I believe that most of the preachers and teachers today are teaching false doctrine. There's way too many to list here. What I always do is research what they say to find out 1 thing and 1 thing only to determine if they are teaching God's word. First I compare what they say to the commandments of God and the teachings of Christ. If their teaching is not found there, then I research and find out where the teaching originated. Any teaching that is not found in the commandments of God or the teachings of Christ comes from a single source, man. Man may be motivated by a number of factors to teach something that is not of God but in the end it is undoubtedly Satan who puts these things in peoples minds in order to lead as many astray as possible. When the false teachings come from someone who can sound Biblical it is easier to fool someone who doesn't know the commandments of God and the teachings of Christ and takes the Biblical sounding person at their word. It's a shame, but even in the "church" you can't trust in what you are being told as the "Gospel Truth". That's why Paul admonished us, in 2 Timopthy 2:15-16 (KJV) "15Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." Hope that helps.

I've researched many sources on the subject. I will investigate any source you have that is backed by actual provable facts. Have you any in mind? You didn't answer the question. Allow me to repeat it. Should the DOJ be allowed to investigate someone just because they stated their opinion as a government appointed expert on the subject and that opinion didn't comport with the narrative pushed by the administration with no proof?

Boy, that's quite an analysis. I didn't argue anything. I simply asked the question. That said, how can you possibly argue that if the order is upheld it is a victory for Trump AND the Constitution, whereas if Krebs is vindicated it will be a victory for Krebs but not the Constitution. How is it that the constitution is validated or vindicated only if it agrees with Trump? Last time I checked even the President is subject to the Constitution and not the other way around.

Thanks for the lesson from the first chapter of the textbook from "Introduction to American Government". In Chapter 2 it will introduce the idea that we are really a Constitutional Democratic Republic. It is a mixed system, neither pure republic nor pure democracy. The term "constitutional republic' is the simpler condensed version. You'll also find that we are a "federation of States". I'm no constitutional scholar but I am familiar with the 1st Amendment and thus the question that you still haven't answered. That is, is there any legitimate constitutional argument for having someone investigated with no evidence of wrongdoing except that he gave his opinion as a government expert in his field, which includes election security, just because it doesn't fit the narrative of the administration?

That's all good and fine but the question wasn't about whataboutism! That's a game that leads one in a circle with no answers forthcoming. I could point to numerous instances on both sides where things were done that are questionable to say the least. And to what end? I guess that anyone who doesn't know that there is malfeasance on both sides will probably never learn. The old saying is "Them that knows, knows and them that don't know most often don't know that they don't know." The question isn't are there other instances where political leaders made questionable decisions. Once again, the question is; Is there a constitutional basis in the US to investigate a career federal employee who simply stated his expert opinion on a matter just because that opinion differed from the administration? Do you have an opinion on the question or do you want to play whataboutism? As for making allegations that he is somehow compromised when there has never been any question regarding his integrity is nothing but a low blow and certainly not a Christlike response or attitude.

I've heard all these allegations ad nauseam from the right. I can find no credible reporting to support them. Could you please provide such evidence? When you make claims with no credible evidence to back them, I can only assume they are political propaganda or disinformation. In the case of election fraud, I always say follow the money. A week after the 2020 election, Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick offered up to $1 million (paid from his campaign account) "“to incentivize, encourage and reward people to come forward and report voter fraud.” To this day, he has only had to pay out a total of $25,000 of that money as there was no proof of any voter fraud except one instance. That was Eric Frank, a poll worker, who received the money for his reporting Ralph Holloway Thurman, a Republican who after voting once for Trump, attempted to vote a second time as his son. That's it! If all this fraud existed, why hasn't anyone else reported it and received their portion of the $1 million? The Michael Gabelman claims about thousands of what you call "mentally-deficient patients in Wisconsin nursing homes" who "were incapable of speaking or writing," (claims even he never made) casting ballots have been dis-proven by fact checkers everywhere from Politifact to the AP. Even Mr. Gableman could only provide 7 people whom he interviewed and claimed were incompetent. Of these 5 were proven competent and the other 2 were deemed to have dementia a full year after the election. I know the Washington Times made a big deal of the original claims and Trump touted them as gospel truth but where's the evidence?

Could you provide properly documented evidence to support your assertions? For that matter, what is the "truthfulness of the laptop once being owned by Hunter Biden"? The Trump campaign touted that it contained evidence of wrongdoing or corruption on the part of his father as it concerned Ukraine and Hunter's involvement with Burisma. A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 and a Republican House Oversight Committee investigation released in April 2024 did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden with regard to Ukraine and his son's business dealings there. Politifact wrote in June 2021 that the laptop did belong to Hunter Biden, but did not demonstrate wrongdoing by Joe Biden. If there was "election interference taken by Zuckerberg and Facebook", why haven't they been indicted? At any rate, the point which you seem to have missed is that the Post wasn't banned by Facebook while the Epoch Times was.

The Christian celebration of the day of Christ’s resurrection or “Easter” has been a staple of the Christian church since at least the second century. It was originally called “Pascha”, a transliteration of the Aramaic word for Passover, "Paskha”, reflecting the connection between the Jewish Passover and the Christian celebration of the Resurrection, which occurred during the Passover week. The first recorded use of the name “Easter” was in the 8th Century , when the noted scholar, the Venerable Bede, noted the change with the following explanation; “the Anglo-Saxon month corresponding to April was called "Eosturmonath", which was named after the goddess Eostre”. He wrote that “a pagan festival of spring in the name of the goddess has become assimilated into the Christian celebration of the resurrection of Christ”. Recent archaeological research appears to confirm the worship of Eostre in parts of England and Germany, with the hare as her main symbol. Thus Christians began calling the celebration of Christ’s resurrection “Easter” after her. It is of note that Anglo-Saxon pagans didn’t start converting to Christianity until sometime in the late 6th century. The conversion of King Æthelbert of Kent in 597, was one of the first major shifts in their beliefs as many of his constituents followed his lead and converted themselves. As they adopted Christianity, pagans brought with them remnants of their old beliefs. Some of these beliefs made it into mainstream Christianity with such things as the naming of “Easter”. Christians celebrate Easter with many church services. A recent study by “Lifeway Research” shows that over half of U.S. Protestant pastors identify Easter as the day their church has its highest attendance. That said, what is with all the other traditions and practices that surround the celebration? For instance the “Easter Bunny” is probably the most recognized of all the “Easter” traditions, but what does an egg laying bunny have to do with Christ’s resurrection? Every year Christians everywhere hide eggs or reasonable facsimiles thereof and tell their children that the Easter Bunny has left hidden eggs for them to find. I’ve checked and the Bible makes no mention of a long-eared furry creature with a little ball of fur for a tail that hides decorated eggs for children to hunt on Easter. So, how did this critter and his eggs become a part of the Christian celebration of “Easter”? As noted above, the hare was the main symbol associated with the goddess Eostre, after which “Easter” is named. The exact origins of the mythical furry egg laying mammal are unclear, but rabbits, known to be prolific procreators, are an ancient pagan symbol of fertility and new life. In 51 B.C.E., Julius Caesar noted that people in Britain did not eat hares due to their religious significance. Hares were given ritual burials alongside humans during the Neolithic age in Europe. Archaeologists have interpreted this as a religious ritual, with hares representing rebirth. In the classical Greek tradition, hares were sacred to Aphrodite, the goddess of love. Meanwhile, Aphrodite’s son Eros was often depicted carrying a hare as a symbol of unquenchable desire. During the Renaissance, hares often appear as symbols of sexuality in literature and art. For example, the Virgin Mary is often shown with a white hare or rabbit, symbolizing that she overcame sexual temptation. Early accounts of the “Easter” association with a hare or rabbit from the 1600s include the eating of hare meat on Christmas. The practice is most likely associated with the belief in scaring away witches at “Easter”, as this was a common practice at the time. Throughout northern Europe, folk traditions record a strong belief that witches would often take the form of a hare, usually for causing mischief such as stealing milk from neighbors’ cows.The spring equinox, with its promise of new life, was held symbolically in opposition to the life-draining activities of witches and winter. One tradition, known as the “Hare Pie Scramble,” was held at Hallaton, a village in Leicestershire, England. It involved eating a pie made with hare meat and people “scrambling” for a slice. In 1790, the local parson tried to stop the custom due to its pagan associations, but he was unsuccessful, and the custom continues in that village until this day. Most scholars agree that the modern version of the tradition began in the 1700s when German immigrants settled in Pennsylvania and transported their tradition of an egg-laying hare called “Osterhase” or “Oschter Haws.” Their children made nests in which this creature could lay its colored eggs. Soon, the fabled rabbit’s Easter morning deliveries expanded to include chocolate and other types of candy and gifts, while decorated baskets replaced nests. Now, let’s look at the egg itself and the historic symbolism. The egg was an ancient pagan symbol of new life and has been associated with pagan festivals celebrating the regeneration of spring for many centuries. This is believed to be the basis of the “Osterhase”, as the ritual was practiced around the spring equinox. The “Osterhase” and the practice of coloring the eggs dates to around the 13th Century according to many sources. And what about all that candy? Easter is the second best-selling candy holiday in America after Halloween. Among the most popular sweet treats associated with this day are chocolate eggs, which date back to early 19th-century Europe. Another egg-shaped candy, the jelly bean, became associated with Easter in the 1930s. And we can’t forget the chocolate bunnies. All totaled Americans spend around $3B on candy alone at Easter. This is another example of what happens when commercialism and consumerism become intertwined with religious holidays. It was the candy industry that convinced us that we needed their candy to celebrate the resurrection of Christ. They started with chocolate eggs, this led to egg shaped jelly beans, followed by chocolate rabbits and marshmallow bunnies called Peeps. Rodda Candy, the company that introduced Peeps in the 1940s also originally made marshmallow crosses, which of course are associated with Easter. They blatantly marketed their sweets to fit what were already symbols of Easter. So, now we celebrate the resurrection of Christ with all these trappings that have absolutely nothing to do with Christ or His resurrection, but are instead vestiges of ancient pagan beliefs that have been used to commercialize what should be the remembrance of a solemn and joyous occasion. Would Christ be happy to see His resurrection celebrated in this way? Would God approve? Or would God rather that we spent that $3B (that’s spent on candy alone and doesn’t include all the plastic eggs and baskets or the spring fashions purchased for the occasion) to help the poor? Since there are around 800,000 homeless people in America today that would come out to $3750 per homeless person. Just saying.

With all the political upheaval in the US today, I thought I'd mention a story that has pretty much slipped through the cracks. It's the investigation of Chris Krebs. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Krebs, he was the Director of Trump’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Trump fired Krebs in November 2020 after he defended the integrity of the 2020 election. Now in 2025, he has ordered the DOJ to begin an investigation of Krebs. Trump himself said he was targeting the former public servant for saying the 2020 election was not rigged. In the order to investigate him, Trump said “Abusive conduct of this sort both violates the First Amendment and erodes trust in Government, thus undermining the strength of our democracy itself.” As the administration's top cybersecurity official, he was a key witness during Congress’s investigation into the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. In his testimony he said that Trump and Republican officials “lied to the American people about the security of the 2020 election.” This so upset the Trump campaign that Trump’s campaign attorney, Joseph diGenova, said on Newsmax that Krebs “should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.” Well, they can't draw and quarter him or take him out at dawn and shoot him, so they are having him investigated by the DOJ. So, is it acceptable in the US for someone to be be investigated for speaking out as an expert in election fraud on election fraud just because his opinion doesn't align with the claims of the President? That's the only reason given for the investigation.

Seriously! Yes, they did! I only mentioned this one instance because it's what the post was about. Are you suggesting that I should have listed everyone who has ever been banned by Facebook in a post that isn't about them? Seriously? And just FYI, the Post was not banned over the Hunter Biden laptop story. Facebook simply took the story down for a few days until the fact checkers checked it and the Post revised it to eliminate the unsubstantiated parts.

I've always been curious as to why a "married" couple running around naked is sinful. As for modesty, there was no one else there to see. God obviously didn't have a problem with them being naked until after the famous "eating of the fruit". At least He never admonished them to clothe themselves. The fruit was "the knowledge of good and evil", indicating that before eating it, they had no concept of good and evil. The old saying is ignorance is bliss and it seems that Adam and Eve were blissful until sin entered the picture. The original sin, in reality was disobeying God. He had only given one command at that time and that command was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We are told that Adam and Eve were created in God's own image. That's another conundrum in itself, as we can't really know what the image of God actually is. That said, men have always used this passage to try to explain God in light of human attributes and vice versa. This has led to much push back from non-believers, making the point that man has tried to make himself in some ways equal with God. The quote that's often attributed to Voltaire says "In the beginning God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since." So, the whole story has created much debate and consternation solely based on a literal reading of the story. That's why I prefer to take a more nuanced approach to the entire debate. That is, I admit there are things I don't understand and will not until God reveals them in His time. As for the creation story, I don't know if it's meant to be a literal blow by blow, day by day account or a metaphorical one, using a garden and fruits as an analogy to man choosing the knowledge of good and evil as shared by Satan over God's commandment and thus seriously damaging his relationship with God. Note that God didn't sever the relationship but punished Adam and Eve via banishment from the garden. The bright side is that it's not necessary to accept or believe either reading in order to serve God and follow Christ.

I've often wondered the same thing. Personally, I list the pre-tribulation rapture in the category of things that may or may not be accurate, so I have no opinion on it's validity or lack thereof. That said, I've always been curious about the time spent debating the apocalypse and what folks get from discussing it. Without getting into the details, I believe the entire debate over the apocalypse and the rapture as a whole is unnecessary if we aren't planning on being here for it. And since we know that the end is closer today than it was yesterday, shouldn't we as Christians concentrate on those things which Christ taught us to do (which shouldn't be controversial at all) and leave all the extracurricular discussion for when we get to Heaven? But wait, then, presumably we'll know the answers anyway. It's debates like the ones concerning pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib rapture that divide us into an estimated 45,000 denominations. Why can't we just come together in those things on which we should agree (specifically doing what Christ taught). Since he never taught any of those theories why should they divide us?

In the runup to the 2020 election, a small right wing news organization called the Epoch Times saw an opportunity and seized it. They directed millions of dollars in advertising toward supporting the Trump campaign and published dozens of articles in it's newspaper parroting almost every Trump talking point. They published so many stories that proved untruthful that they were banned from advertising on Facebook, but that didn't deter the far right faithful who flocked to support the organization. Now, what started some 20 odd years ago as a small, insignificant organization primarily geared toward a campaign against the CCP, had become one of the country's most successful and influential right wing conservative news organizations. They were the #2 poster of pro-Trump ads (behind only the Trump campaign) on Facebook before being banned. The Epoch Media Group also operates the New Tang Dynasty (NTD) television network. According to their tax documents, between 2019 and 2021 their revenue grew by 685%. Their unwavering support of the Trump campaign brought them a bonanza of contributions from big money right wing supporters and they now claim to be the country's 4th largest newspaper by subscriber count. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls it one of his most trusted news sources. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) recited the history of the Epoch Times into the Congressional Record. As a nonprofit, The Epoch Times is exempt from most federal taxes. Its mission, according to tax filings, is independent journalism, “outside of political interests and the pursuit of profit, for the public benefit and to be truly responsible to society.” Many on the left have decried that the organization has become a right wing PAC and should register as such but authorities have yet to look into the issue. In recent years the Epoch Times has denied any affiliation with the Falun Gong despite the two groups ongoing financial and organizational ties and the fact that the entire Epoch Times board members and most staff are Falun Gong practitioners. The non-profits behind both organizations share executives and provide grants and services to each other, according to tax filings. And the newspaper, along with it's digital production company and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun, make up a nonprofit network that the leader of the religious movement calls “our media.” So, who is the Epoch Times and who controls it? The Falun Gong (or Falun Dafa) are a religious organization that has been persecuted by the CCP for decades. The Epoch Times was formed by members of the Falun Gong in 2000 as a small, free propaganda newsletter, in opposition to the CCP. Falun Gong literally means "Practice of the Law Wheel" (Dharma Chakra) which refers to a series of five meditative exercises aimed at channeling and harmonizing the "qi" or vital energy. The Falun Gong is based on the teachings of Li Hongzhi. He first published what has become the groups "canon", in two books the "Teachings of Falun Gong" in China in 1992 and Zhuan Falun" in 1993. Followers consider his writings sacred. They cover a range of topics from spiritual, scientific and moral issues to the metaphysical. Translated their core principles are supposedly based on truthfulness, benevolence and forebearance. The term "Falun" or Buddha Fa, is a great high level of the "Buddha School" in which "assimilation to the supreme nature of the universe" is the foundation of their practice. In this concept, one must practice to upgrade one's mind and nature by abandoning "negative attachments" and "assimilating oneself to Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance". The term "Practice" refers to the five meditative exercises that are said to purify and transform one's body. Li asserts that this world is beset with evil, disease, and immorality and only under his guidance can one attain perfect health and personal salvation. The teachings of Falun Gong makes a distinction between fojia, Buddha School, and fojiao, the religion of Buddhism as well as between the Dao School (daojia) and the religion of Daoism. Falun Gong incorporates their own version of each. Thay incorporate the practices of Qigong that involves movements and/or poses combined with controled breathing in the pursuit of spiritual "transcendence". Li also teaches the segreation of the races and rejects modern medicine. From the beginning, Li has asserted his absolute authority over the transmission of the teachings and the use of healing powers of Falun Gong: he said in Changchun that only he is possessed of these right, and any who violate are to be expelled. Falun Gong practitioners see Li Hongzhi as the "enlightened teacher" or master whose writings and teachings carry unique spiritual authority. Some have said that Li claims top be the "sovereign god whose Fa powers are thousands of times stronger than that of Sakyamuni and Jesus Christ". I can't seem to find a specific quote where he said this, so make of iy what you will. Even before stepping into the political limelight, Falun Gong attracted a good deal of public attention. Its popularity has steadily grown at a grassroots level, not only in China, but also in countries such as Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the United States. It has undergone an unprecedented period of growth since becoming involved in US politics. So, how did such an organization become so intertwined in American politics and why have so many right wingers, including many Evangelicals, been so swayed by them? Does anyone have any insights?

I've seen them on occasion. Never knew anyone who had one. I figure that since God told the Israelites in Leviticus 19:28 "28Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD", He might not look kindly on them to this day. Some will say that the Old Testament Law isn't incumbent upon Christians today, but I always like to err on the side of caution. God surely won't judge us for refraining from something that He warned against, so, as for myself, I'll remain tattoo free.

From what I see right now, the government is just as full of rich folks as it has ever been. If anything, the gap between those rich folks and the average working person has widened. Wealth inequality is higher in the US than in practically any other developed country. Over the years, amid a trend of economic deregulation, privatization of financialization, erosion of labor market institutions and declining tax progressivity, the wealth gap has widened significantly. Today, the top 10% of earners control 2/3 of the total wealth in the US while the bottom 50% hold only 2.4% of the wealth. The top 1% hold an estimated $49.2 trillion in wealth! It is those who control this enormous wealth who control our government at the highest levels. I believe their underlying agenda is to find ways to use their political power to increase their own portfolios whether or not those actions benefit the poor. That's how, in many cases, they obtained the wealth in the first place. But we live in a Democratic state and we keep voting for them. As long as they can keep getting elected, they can continue the trend.

I don't claim to know all there is to know about tariffs. I know they vary widely across the globe. I don't believe anyone can accurately predict how well they will work or if they will backfire unless one can also predict the trends of all the related factors that will ultimately come into play, including but not limited to how other countries react and how the markets react, not to mention all the Geo-political factors that are so unpredictable in this moment.

I don't care what denomination the church in question is. I apologize that I can't recommend a specific one, but it sounds to me as if your best option is to find another church where you can worship without the stress you describe. It sounds like you have gotten nowhere with the offending parties at this one.

If you are speaking to me, it sounds as if you may have gotten the wrong idea about my political leanings. I noted that I don't believe propaganda either on the right or the left. I always research to find the truth and report it no matter which way it leans politically. Just because I call out the "disinformation" on the right in this instance doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with the left on any other issue. That's reading way too much into my comments on a single subject. For that matter, I don't believe that either party has interest in religion either. I believe that what Billy Graham said about the right applies to both sides. Both sides are interested only in whether they can manipulate religion for their own political purposes. I also believe that neither the right or left wings in American politics has done a very good job running the country for quite some time. That said, what I believe the most is that to take a hard stand on either side, with politics as divisive as they are these days, might tend to compromise one's Christian testimony with those on the opposite political spectrum. A hard core right winger might have a hard time accepting the Gospel from someone who has expressed hard left wing political views and vice versa. So, I just try and find the truth behind every issue that I choose to comment on, regardless of the political bend of said truth. That said, one of the biggest problems I see with politics and political parties is that both parties are run by rich donors (and oft times candidates) who assure us that they are standing up for the average Joe (or the poor and middle class) but their track record shows that their policies, by and large, end up benefiting themselves and their rich counterparts. There have been a few exceptions but recently I don't see many. I am reminded that in every instance where Christ talked about a rich man, the rich man was not the good guy or did not follow Christ. The lone exception is Zacchaeus, the only rich man that Christ said received salvation. And the reason He said that is that Zacchaeus gave away his riches (or a goodly part of them) to the poor as, Christ taught. He also returned fourfold to those whom he had taken their money through "false accusation" (in the KJV). I wonder what would happen to the government and politics if poor folks quit supporting rich folks who attended Ivy League schools and know nothing of the lives of poor folks except what they learned in school? I wonder a lot of things but in reality, we must play with the hand we are dealt and I choose to believe neither side until I research and find the truth or lack thereof in what they say. I take it topic by topic. I will support either side when they are truthful and will call out either side when they are not. It's not about right or left it's about truth. I believe it's the way Christ would have wanted it. Christ, in all matters, was about the truth. And I don't have time for time to enlighten me so I'll rely on God and His word for that.

Interesting point about the disagreement between the Pharisees and the Essenes over the over the dating of Pentecost. That would make a great thread for a discussion in itself. You also note that the Pharisees did not always dent the Greek scriptures. I hold out that they didn't always and there's no evidence suggesting that they never denied them. Thus the question, did Paul exhort us to study them?

Correct. You speak of non-canonical, meaning not a part of the "canon" approved by modern churches. Actually the word canon wasn't even used in context of religious scriptures, meaning a set of accepted or authoritative texts, until the late 18th century. The question wasn't if they were "canonical" or not (obviously they are not, thus the controversy). The question was did Paul urge Timothy (and by extension all Christians) to study them. In other words when Paul said "all scripture" did that mean the Apocrypha as well. Taking into account there was no "canon" in those days and that Paul was a Pharisee and the Pharisees were known to read the apocryphal books, it seems entirely possible.

I tried reading the Gospel of Thomas once. I found it way too rambling for my taste. All I know is that from what I've read about the apocryphal Gospels, none of them contain any teachings of Christ during His ministry that are not already covered in the ones in the New Testament. They put a slightly nuanced spin on the ones we already know but they contain no new ones. That said, I don't feel the need to read them in their entirety. Of course this discussion is about Old Testament apocrypha and whether Paul was calling them scripture and extorting Timothy to study them.

Just to add a note, Jude quoted the Apocryphal Book of Enoch Jude 1:14-16. "14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage."

You say the media that "we" have been shown lately we can't trust". How I substantiate my post is research to find the truth behind the media stories that we can't trust. I don't ever trust any single source on anything unless that source is God or Jesus Christ. And I don't rely on strictly right or left leaning sources. I read both any many in between on most subjects before commenting. I read all your far right commentators, didn't I? I check the bios on the authors of what I'm reading whenever possible. As I noted, I also checked the bios on the sources you mentioned but didn't quote. I even shared a few of their quotes. That's as first hand as info gets. You ask how I substantiate the things I post, well, many are well known facts and reported widely if you just look beyond right wing extremist sources. I shared with you quotes with dates, and context of the quotes from both sides so as not to take them out of context. You indicate that you and I differ as to why and whether the Russians have a right to do so. I say, as I tried to show, that you differ with most every reputable source on the subject. I simply quoted reliable and unimpeachable sources and showed how the only ones that agree with your logic are either Russian sources or extreme right wing commentators with a decided pro-Russian bend. I showed the well documented Russian bias of the two you mentioned, so as to show that their opinion is bent toward Russia. It's not I with whom you disagree but the facts as iterated by the UN, the EU, NATO and even the Russian President himself, not to mention every reputable fact checking organization I could find. I try to always believe the proven facts and my opinion is based on research on both sides to find those facts. It's a slippery slope when you base opinions on unreliable, biased or otherwise compromised sources. Ditto, when you base them on just one side of any issue. I still don't know exactly where you get your information. (aside from the couple of sources that I've already shown to be extremely biased) To the best of my recollection, you have quoted no fact that can be backed up and verified as truthful by independent research. I believe that as a Christian, if I make a statement that upon scrutiny can be proven false, (as the ones which I mentioned) then it might negatively affect my testimony and it's certainly not worth it to espouse some political agenda. Let me quote one last source that I personally have always found to be reliable. The Reverend Billy Graham said in an interview in Parade magazine "The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it". Personally, I make sure neither they nor the left will manipulate me because I'll not share the propaganda on either side unless I can prove the validity of their claims beyond a reasonable doubt and will try to point out the true facts if they propagate false claims.

Again, I ask to who or what you believe to be the "deep state". And yes what PNAC proposed was put into action when Dick Cheney and others joined the Bush administration and advised him on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were thought to be the one's who convinced Bush that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That proved to be untrue. How did those wars work out after all was said and done? I still can't find anything they wrote or proposed concerning Russia and Ukraine. Could you please provide details? I am familiar with Colonel Macgregor as a frequest guest on the Tucker Carlson show. I know he's made more than his share of unsubstantiated claims in his day. such as, in 2019, on the Conservative Commandos radio show, Macgregor alleged that George Soros was financing the transportation of foreigners to the United States, purportedly to destroy American culture. Of course he had no evidence to back up his claim and it has since been debunked my most every reputable fact checking service. In 2014, appeared on Russian state-owned network RT after the first invasion of Ukraine, where he called for annexation of the Donbas region and said residents of the region "are in fact Russians, not Ukrainians. By that same logic, should Cuba invade Puerto Rico because they are not Anglo Americans but Hispanic? In an October 2021 speech to the Serbian American Voters Alliance, Macgregor blamed America's problems on what "the Russians used to call certain individuals many, many years ago, rootless cosmopolitans". "Rootless cosmopolitans" is a Russian anti-semantic term He has spoken in support of Russia on many occasions and said of the current conflict that he believes Russia should be allowed to seize whatever parts of Ukraine it wants. Shortly after the war began he said "The first five days Russian forces I think frankly were too gentle." Veteran Fox News Pentagon correspondent Jennifer Griffin called him "an 'apologist' for Putin". Liz Cheney described Macgregor as "the Putin wing of the GOP". Everything I can find that he has said about the conflict from the beginning is in line with Russian propaganda and disinformation. Sorry, but I tend to not believe Russian propaganda regardless of who repeats it. It's just not had a good track record for truthfulness. As for Scott Ritter, first, he is a convicted sex offender. He was convicted in 2011 of arranging sexual encounters with authorities posing as children in an underage sex sting. He served 2 years for that conviction. Just last year his home was raided by the FBI where they confiscated boxes of evidence relating to an investigation into possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. He has espoused many conspiracy theories in his time and has long been known as an avid supporter of Russia. Of course he has taken Russia's side on the conflict. I just prefer to get my information from those who are just a little less biased and who can provide solid unimpeachable evidence for their views and not from those known to parrot Russian disinformation. You say you "overheard things" that let me know how they worked. Just what did you hear and how do they work? Sorry, but I'll not base any opinions on undisclosed things you heard.