End Times and Current Events
July 22, 2018, 03:24:33 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Hegel's Dialectic: Erasing Christianity through the Consensus Process

Shoutbox
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
September 11, 2017, 03:40:40 am Christian40 says: those in america should better repent or things will only get worse
View Shout History
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Hegel's Dialectic: Erasing Christianity through the Consensus Process  (Read 1767 times)
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2015, 08:56:46 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/us-senate-yes-climate-change-real-002229559.html
US Senate: Yes, climate change is real
1/21/15

Washington (AFP) - In a surprise move, US Senate Republicans joined Democrats and went on record Wednesday acknowledging that climate change is real.

The symbolic amendment, attached to a controversial bill authorizing contruction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, was approved 98-1 after Senator James Inhofe, seen as the top climate change denier in Congress, announced he was supporting the legislation.

Inhofe however strongly rejected any suggestion that human activity was responsible for climate change.

The move can be seen as a critical step forward for US lawmakers, but it is not a revolutionary one.

The 16-word measure states: "It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax."

It makes no mention of the impact of human activity, including the use of fossil fuels, on global warming.

Two other measures attributing climate change to human activity failed to pass the 60-vote threshold in the 100-member Senate, although one got five Republican votes and the other received 14.

"This is a small victory but an important one," Senator Barbara Boxer, top Democrat on the Senate's environmental panel, told reporters.

"It means that there's a softening of the attitude of the deniers. They're losing ground in the face of public opinion."

Senator Brian Schatz, who introduced the failed measure with the most direct attribution of climate change to human activity, said Wednesday's progress "exceeded my expectations."

"There is an emerging bipartisan group of people who believe that climate change is real and caused by humans and solvable," he said.

The measures were introduced by Democrats keen on highlighting differences with some Republicans on the simmering issue of climate policy.

Republicans hold the majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives following November congressional elections.

But with the 2016 presidential race on the horizon, Republican leaders may have agreed to hold votes on the measures now in order to avoid potentially embarrassing climate votes in the midst of a White House race.

Applause rippled through the chamber when Inhofe declared he was co-sponsoring the measure saying climate change is not a hoax.

"Climate always changed," Inhofe said, noting there was archaeological, historic and "biblical evidence" of that.

"The hoax is, that there are some people who think they are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful that they can change the climate. Man can't change climate," Inhofe insisted.

During his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Barack Obama chided Republicans for refusing to acknowledge scientific conclusions that human activity is impacting the climate.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 10, 2015, 05:06:36 pm »

They are really politicizing this agenda in the mainstream now - not good.

Ben Carson: Vaccines are good medicine, not political issue
2/8/15

Retired neurosurgeon and presidential hopeful Ben Carson attempted Sunday to diffuse the vaccination debate that has gripped the political scene, saying there’s no reason to turn vaccines for measles and other diseases into a partisan issue.

Mr. Carson, a star in conservative circles, said scientists have debunked skeptics who warn of debilitating side effects from vaccines, and parents who forgo vaccinations are eroding the herd immunity that has lulled them into complacency.

“We’ve had such an effective vaccination program that you’re not seeing the diseases,” Mr. Carson told “Fox News Sunday.”

**You mean like the SKYROCKETING autism rates since the 90's? Angry

A measles outbreak traced to Disneyland in California has resulted in at least 150 cases, and the political wildfire around whether parents must vaccinate their children is spreading just as quickly. Some Republican presidential hopefuls struggled with the issue last week, prompting other contenders to quickly tout the merits of vaccines.

Meanwhile, government disease specialists said the benefits of vaccination far outweigh side effects that typically amount to a sore arm or slight fever.

Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said measles is a disease “that’s entirely preventable.”

He accused the anti-vaccine crowd of putting the youngest Americans at risk, as toddlers cannot get the shot until they reach their first birthday.

“What we’re talking about are outbreaks among vulnerable people,” said Dr. Fauci, the nation’s top disease fighter.

The situation has renewed debate about whether governments and school districts have done enough to stamp out diseases. On Friday the University of California system announced that, starting in 2017, incoming students must be vaccinated against measles and other diseases.

The intersection between medical science and government mandates tripped up prominent politicians last week.

Early in the week, Sen. Rand Paul said vaccines for the most part should be voluntary, and that he has heard of “tragic cases” of normal children who wound up with mental disorders after vaccination.

The Kentucky Republican then clarified his comments, saying he thinks everyone should be encouraged to get vaccines and that his position doesn’t really differ from that of President Obama, who said there’s no reason not to get the shots.


New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said during an overseas trip to England last week that he had vaccinated his children, but that government should strike a balance so parents have a say in the issue.

His office later clarified that “there is no question kids should be vaccinated.”

President Obama and leading 2016 contenders, such as Republican Jeb Bush and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton, have said parents should vaccinate their children.



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/8/carson-vaccines-are-good-medicine-not-political-is/?page=1#ixzz3ROULjJxl
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2015, 07:59:56 pm »

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/01/30/dr-manny-should-obama-make-vaccines-mandatory-for-all-children/
1/30/15
Dr. Manny: Should Obama make vaccines mandatory for all children?

I am calling on the federal government to mandate vaccinations for all children, and to eliminate all of the silly loopholes that are creating chaos in so many communities throughout America. Vaccinations are not only about the individual, but they are also meant to protect the lives of others.

As we have seen over the past several weeks, measles, and other communicable diseases that were all but eradicated decades ago, are popping up across the country, and putting people’s lives in danger.

Basic childhood vaccines should be the legal requirement of every citizen in this country, except in the case of medical contraindications. However, those exclusions should only be granted by a physician or health care provider. It is not for the parent, or consumer advocate to offer an opinion that prevents a child from receiving a vaccination. All these opinions serve to do is confuse the caregiver and possibly even misinform them, which could have fatal implications for the child.

Despite the fact that I hate the idea of government regulations and mandates, I have to agree with many of my colleagues that the time has come for the government to step in and take control of this issue. Let’s take a look at who unvaccinated children put in danger: Anybody who has a weakened immune system, and I’m talking specifically about adults.

Any cancer survivor, or chemotherapy patient has a weakened immune system, and exposure to measles could be fatal. Each day, an average of 79 people receive life-saving organ transplants. Many of them must take immunosuppressive drugs for the rest of their lives to prevent rejection of their new, healthy organ making them virtually defenseless against communicable diseases. 

Patients who are prescribed certain medications to treat arthritis, or those taking prednisone, a steroid used to treat inflammatory diseases, also have depressed immune systems making them vulnerable to diseases.

It’s easy to see that the argument is not about one unvaccinated child. The basis of the argument stems from the need to protect our society from communicable diseases. We must enforce policies that would guarantee that at least some of the basic vaccines like those to protect against measles, mumps, rubella, polio, whooping cough and tetanus are given to children. In doing so, we will help our youth enjoy a healthy childhood, while also protecting ourselves from early, possibly preventable death.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: March 05, 2015, 02:04:36 pm »

Don't get me wrong - as you all know, I'm one of the staunchest supporters of Autism awareness(via exposing vaccinations and GMOs that have inflicted Austism people).

However - look at the whole Problem. Reaction. Solution. Hegelian Dialectic these Illuminati minions are playing the public with...ultimately to get their hearts AWAY from the word of God, and salvation by faith through grace of the finished works at the cross of our LORD Jesus Christ.

I just saw a 15 minute youtube video of this special-needs school for autism children - again, I am a BIG advocate of getting these children their proper treatment...but NOT by the world system's way!

http://www.elija.org/school/

The ELIJA School is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting children with Autism, their families and the Autism community at large with science-based treatments utilizing the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). Today 1 in 88 children are diagnosed with Autism making it more common than pediatric cancer, diabetes, and AIDS combined. The school opened its doors in order to improve the quality of education for children with Autism from the Long Island and New York City areas who could not be served in their available public school settings. The ELIJA School also provides extensive training programs, advocacy and outreach services for for professionals, individuals, their families, teachers and caregivers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2Corinthians 11:20  For ye suffer, if a man bring you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take of you, if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you on the face.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: March 25, 2015, 08:11:12 pm »

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/279400-robert-duvall-message-gop-hes-pulling-punches/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Culture
3/25/15
Conservative Actor Robert Duvall Has a Message for the Republican Party About Religion and Politics

Robert Duvall sat down with The Daily Beast at the recent South-by-Southwest (SXSW) festival to talk about his new movie, “Wild Horses.”

But the enigmatic actor also offered up some strong advice to the Republican Party, which we’ll get to in a bit.

According to the publication, Duvall has been a longtime supporter of the GOP:

He was personally invited to George W. Bush’s presidential inauguration in 2001, worked the floor—and narrated the videos—for the 2008 Republican National Convention, and publicly endorsed Mitt Romney in 2012.

But last year, Duvall told The Daily Beast that he’s leaning independent because the Republican Party today is, in his view, “a mess.”
So, where has the Republican Party gone wrong, according to Duvall? He told the Daily Beast that the GOP’s stance on birth control and religion is a problem:

“It’s unfortunate. Women can’t be independent. Also, religion and politics should be completely separate. Completely separate.”

For some reason, Duvall also pointed out the difference, in his opinion, between politics and religion in America and Italy:

“When we took “The Apostle” to the Rome Film Festival, I said, ‘Here, you have one church and a ton of political parties. In America, we have two political parties and all kinds of churches.’ It’s strange.”

Whatever “strangeness” Mr. Duvall sees in America’s relationship with politics and religion, is he right in his admonishment to the GOP? Moreover, would the Republicans be wise to heed his call, or not?
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2015, 10:32:08 am »

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Tony-Perkins-supports-Indiana-Religious-Freedom-Restoration/2015/03/31/id/635641/
FRC's Tony Perkins Supports Clarification of Indiana Law
3/31/15

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins offered support for "clarification" of Indiana's controversial Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence held a news conference Tuesday morning to address the controversy that he admitted took him by surprise.

Critics of the law say it allows discrimination by businesses against gay people. Defenders of the law say it does no such thing — it simply allows people with religious convictions to avoid being forced to act against those beliefs.

"The governor addressed the complete falsehood that RFRA is about denying people a seat in a restaurant or a room at a hotel," Perkins said Tuesday in a prepared statement posted on the group's website.

"Christians would never deny people these services, but being forced to participate in a ceremony that violates religious beliefs is completely un-American and uncivil," Perkins said. "We must ensure that religious business owners are not forced by the government to participate in a same-sex ceremony."

RFRA is intended to protect people from government discrimination, he said, but added, "until we see the wording of his proposal, the impact on religious businesses and churches is unknown."

RFRAs are not intended to deny anyone nonreligous services and never have been used to do so, Perkins said.

"We support such a clarification making clear RFRA does not impact nonreligious goods or services," the statement said.

The government shouldn’t force religious businesses and churches to participate in wedding ceremonies contrary to their owners’ beliefs, Perkins said, warning, "If the government punishes people for living their faith, there are no limits to what government can control."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: April 01, 2015, 11:07:08 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-debate-exposes-republican-divisions-070750185--politics.html
Indiana debate exposes Republican divisions
4/1/15

WASHINGTON (AP) — It is a debate many Republicans hoped to avoid.

But as the backlash intensifies over a so-called religious freedom law in Indiana, the GOP's leading White House contenders have been drawn into a messy clash that highlights the party's strong opposition to same-sex marriage and threatens to inject social issues into the early stages of the 2016 presidential primary season.

The debate has also energized Democrats nationwide while exposing sharp divisions between Republicans and local business leaders who oppose a law that critics say allows business owners to deny services to same-sex couples on religious grounds.

"It's been a tough week," Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said in a Tuesday press conference. He called for a legislative fix to address what he called a perception problem just five days after signing the bill into law.

It is a huge moment for Pence, a Republican presidential prospect himself, who has become the public face of the contentious law. It is also a critical time for the Republican Party, which has recently played down its opposition to abortion rights and same-sex marriage to help attract more women and younger voters before the next presidential election.

Polling suggests a majority of the American electorate supports gay marriage, but the most conservative Republicans do not.

"It's a total head-scratcher," former Illinois Republican chairman Pat Brady said of the GOP presidential hopefuls who defended the law. "We're trying to attract voters and win elections. We can't scare people away."

Yet the Republican 2016 presidential class overwhelmingly defended the new law, breaking with local business leaders in favor of conservatives across the country who cheered such laws as a necessary response to overreach by the Obama administration.

"I think Gov. Pence has done the right thing," former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said in a Monday radio interview. He said the law was "simply allowing people of faith space to be able to express their beliefs."

Texas Gov. Rick Perry on Tuesday tweeted: "I stand with" Pence, and "Religious freedom is worth protecting."

"We must stand with those who stand up for religious freedoms," former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee said.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who announced his GOP presidential campaign last week, said the Indiana governor was "holding the line to protect religious liberty" in his state.

Some economic-minded Republicans saw it another way.

"It takes our eye off the really important things to most people in this country: jobs, the economy and our security," said Ronald Weiser, former finance chairman for the Republican National Committee. "That's probably not the best thing for our party as a whole."


Last week, Pence signed the state Religious Freedom Restoration Act, giving heightened protections when businesses or individuals object on religious grounds to providing certain services.

Critics of the law say the intent is to discriminate against gays. They fear, for example, that caterers, florists, photographers and bakers with religious objections to same-sex marriage will be allowed to refuse to do business with gay couples. Supporters of the law say it will only give religious objectors a chance to bring their case before a judge.

Similar proposals have been introduced in more than a dozen states — Arkansas, Georgia and North Carolina, among them — patterned after the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Nineteen other states have similar laws.

North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, a pro-business Republican, has criticized such a proposal in his state, telling The Associated Press on Tuesday that he's yet to see evidence of a problem the bill purports to fix.

Georgia's Republican House Speaker, David Ralston, said Tuesday "the case hasn't been made to me" that a state law is needed to address something already included in the Constitution.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce declined to respond to a request for comment Tuesday. The reaction to the law from the local business community based in the affected states has been negative.

Some companies and organizations in recent days canceled future travel to Indiana or halted expansion plans in the state. Apple CEO Tim Cook wrote an op-ed opposing measures in Indiana and Arkansas, while retail giant Wal-Mart has said the proposal sends the wrong message. The leaders of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and the business website Angie's List were among nine Indiana-based companies "deeply concerned about the impact it is having on our employees and on the reputation of our state," according to a letter they sent to Pence this week.

Democrats were united in their opposition to the law.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, expected to launch her Democratic presidential campaign in the coming weeks, tweeted last week, "Sad this new Indiana law can happen in America today."

Democratic governors in Connecticut and Washington state and Washington, D.C.'s mayor have instructed their employees not to travel to Indiana on official business.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2015, 01:08:23 pm »

https://www.facebook.com/ToddStarnesFNC?fref=ts

Breaking new: Arkansas' Republican governor refuses to sign religious liberty bill -- sends it back for changes.

So let's review -- Republican lawmakers in Georgia, Indiana, Arizona and now Arkansas have refused to stand with people of faith.

Vote accordingly.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2015, 04:43:09 pm »

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/31/mike-pence-s-new-fan-club-wiccans.html
3/31/15
Mike Pence’s New Fan Club: Wiccans

Conservative Christians in Indiana may have accidently protected Wiccans’ religious right to plural marriage, drugs and nudity.

Among the howls of opponents who insist that religious freedom ordinances limit LGBT civil rights, conservative lawmakers in Indiana and other states have found unlikely allies: Wiccans, who claim that any laws that give greater religious freedom are manna from the earth mother.

“I think these bills are horrible,” said Dusty Dionne, High Priest and High Summoner of the Aquarian Tabernacle Church of Washington State. “But if they are going to open up this can of worms, we are going to shove it right in their face.”

Reverend Dionne, reached at his church in the foothills of the Cascade Mountains, took time out from planning for his church’s Spring Mysteries Festival—a re-creation of an initiation ceremony for the cult of Demeter in which ancient Greeks “learned to no longer fear death”—to speak to The Daily Beast. He explained what bills like the one that Indiana passed and that other states are considering would mean for Wiccans and Pagans.

For one, it would mean Wiccans would be free to at last marry whomever, or whatever, they wanted.

“Many of us believe that love is the law. Though it is not a quote-unquote Wiccan tenet to have polyamorous marriages, it is under Wiccan law that love is the law,” he said. “Whatever we want to do with marriage we can do. Carte Blanche. If I want to marry a horse, I can marry a horse.”

Dionne also pointed out that Wiccans have been “herbalists forever,” which would mean not just the freedom to use marijuana, but a host of psychotropic drugs banned by state government.

And if Wiccan residents of Indiana or other states that passed religious freedom ordinances would want to test for any substances, according to the high priest, Wiccans would be free to refuse.

“We believe in internal magic. We believe that we carry our essence within ourselves, our bodies, so we won’t for example drink from a cup of a person we don’t know or, clip our nails in the house of someone we don’t know, because if someone with ill intent has a part of our internal essence, they can hold a power over us. My body is a temple. If you come for a piece of my temple, I can say no.”

Which means, Dionne says, that Wiccans would be able to opt out of blood tests, DNA tests, urine tests, and even Breathalyzer tests if they choose to assert their rights under the new bill.

Furthermore, should a Wiccan be found to dancing naked under the light of a full moon in Terre Haute, they would be immune from prosecution merely by citing “The Charge of the Goddess,” a Wiccan holy scripture: “Whenever you have need of anything, once a month, and better it be when the moon is full, you shall assemble in some secret place and adore the spirit of Me Who is Queen of all the Wise. You shall be free from slavery, and as a sign that you be free you shall be naked in your rites. Sing, feast, dance, make music and love, all in My Presence, for Mine is the ecstasy of the spirit and Mine also is joy on earth.”

But Indiana is not the only state that can look forward to naked, stoned, horse-marrying Wiccans. In March, Dionne endorsed a bill in Georgia similar to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, sending a letter to every member of the legislature thanking them for opening “many doors for our brothers and sisters of the Craft. It will be the burden of the government to institute the appropriate policy changes to infrastructure, and the training needed to properly uphold the new rights that Wiccans hold within the new truly religiously free state of Georgia.”

To be fair, Dionne insists that his lobbying was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, saying, “We have a First Amendment already.”

Some Wiccans do have concerns with what Dionne insists is merely humorous needling. Speaking to WildHunt.org, a website that covers social issues through “A Modern Pagan Perspective,” Wiccan Priest Matthaios Theadoros was concerned that “they are seeming to set up Wicca as one that participates in polyamory and insinuates some sort of questionable herb use. Though some Wiccans may be polyamorous, it is disingenuous to suggest that it is an inherent part of the religion.”

Heather Greene, an editor at Wild Hunt, said that a person in a minority religion is thrilled with any legislative support that protects the ability to practice and worship freely. However, she added that “the concern is that recent RFRA language is so broad that it will ultimately only lead to both religious and LGBTQ discrimination.”

Greene also pointed to a number of instances where Wiccans could have benefited from additional legal protection including schoolchildren forced to remove their pentangle symbols even as their classmates were permitted to wear crosses, and the Antelope Valley Pagan Pride Day, which was crashed by screaming protesters waving Bible verses.

As for Dionne, he says that while his endorsement of religious freedom bills is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, he is also willing to take advantage of his new power, should his new conservative Christian bedfellows manage to pass laws like Indiana’s in other states. He said newly emboldened Wiccans would be ready to defend their newfound rights.

“We are the fifth-largest religion in America, and we are the fastest growing. If they pass these laws, we are going to beat a **** drum.”
« Last Edit: April 01, 2015, 04:52:16 pm by 1st Timothy 6:13-14 » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: April 02, 2015, 08:43:23 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/indiana-lawmakers-announce-proposed-religious-law-changes-132057903.html
Indiana lawmakers announce proposed religious law changes
4/2/15

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana's Republican legislative leaders have unveiled changes to the state's new religious objections law that has faced criticism it could allow discrimination against lesbians and gays.

The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act released Thursday prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service.

A conference committee must discuss the proposed changes to the law, and both the House and the Senate will need to approve them before they can go to Gov. Mike Pence.

Pence called for changes to clarify the law Tuesday in response to an uproar fueled by discrimination concerns.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: April 02, 2015, 01:32:26 pm »

http://townhall.com/columnists/matttowery/2015/04/02/evangelicals-rise-to-prominence-puts-gop-back-to-the-1980s-n1979735?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=
4/2/15
Evangelicals Rise to Prominence Puts GOP Back to the 1980s

Corporate leaders and chambers of commerce are at war with those evangelical Christians who have decided to reassert themselves in the Republican political process. This war is eerily reminiscent of an earlier time when there was friction between the business wing of the GOP and Christian activists.

Make no mistake -- the rise of variations of "religious freedom" bills in GOP-dominated legislatures around the nation is no coincidence. They are supported and backed by skilled political pros and religious leaders who are tired of being left out of the American political process. They are especially weary of being treated as an afterthought in the party they believe they helped build.

Whether one agrees that the preservation of religious freedom needs an extra boost at the state level across the country is all but irrelevant to the more dispassionate study of what this effort portends for the Republican presidential primaries of 2016, and for voter turnout levels for the GOP nominee that November.

Whether one considers religious liberty bills essential or inherently destructive and bigoted, there can be no denying that the Republicans are ever so closer to the days of tele-evangelist Pat Robertson versus the George H.W. Bush GOP "establishment." But before we dive into that ancient history, here's some even older stuff.

It has been all but forgotten that part of Ronald Reagan's success in his 1980 presidential victory was the silent but massive creation of an organized evangelical Christian voter turnout. Conservative Christians had chosen to abandon the also evangelical but less politically conservative Jimmy Carter by turning out in droves to vote for Reagan and to insert their staunch pro-life agenda onto the national political stage. And they were driven to go to the polls by the use of what were then considered ultramodern techniques, such as direct mail and targeted telephone banks, all backed by big conservative money and the top strategists of the day.

By 1988, things got sticky, with a core group of leaders of that same "Christian Coalition" refusing to back Reagan's vice president, George H.W. Bush, in his own presidential run. This was mainly because of his less-than-ardent pro-life positions from times long past.

Instead these religious warriors backed their leader, Pat Robertson. Throughout Robertson's unsuccessful campaign for the '88 Republican nomination, these Christian activists became increasingly intent on having a voice in the Republican agenda.

Bush won the presidency in 1988, in part because he had the blessings of the beloved Reagan, but also because he ran against Mike Dukakis, a weak Democrat. Dukakis's hapless image on television prompted the GOP faithful to rise up from their chairs and flood the polling places.

What ensued was a running feud between establishment Republicans and what they called "the Robertson crowd." The conflict tore various state Republican Party organizations apart and likely contributed to Bush's defeat four years later. But ironically, it was a surge of that same evangelical vote that put George W. Bush in office in 2000 and 2004.


To say these voters were uninspired by GOP presidential nominee John McCain in 2008 would be an understatement. And their excitement for Mitt Romney in 2012 was lukewarm at best.

That brings us to today. Recent passage or efforts to pass religious freedom legislation in states such as Indiana, Arkansas and Georgia demonstrates that the evangelical Christian wing of the Republican Party is alive and on the rise. Their legislative efforts are being characterized as a blatant attack on gay and lesbian groups, and in particular their asserted right to marry. Proponents of these bills adamantly deny such motives.

Where the truth lies is almost impossible to discern. What is discernable is that after years of Barack Obama, whom they consider at best a secular humanist who is hostile to the Judeo-Christian ethic, this potent voter base is once again fired up.


The issue will be, first, whether the business-backed establishment GOP can somehow gain the trust and support of evangelicals, who were once an essential element of Republican presidential victories; and second, to what degree, if any, evangelicals' current legislative efforts might inadvertently bolster Democratic-leaning turnout in '16.

The GOP is being thrown back to the 1980s, whether it or the rest of America likes it or not.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2015, 05:29:13 pm »

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/19/christian_america_is_an_invention_big_business_right_wing_politics_and_the_religious_lie_that_still_divides_us/
4/19/15
Christian America is an invention: Big business, right-wing politics and the religious lie that still divides us
The idea of "one nation under God" is a modern one -- and does not date back to the Founding Fathers


When he ran for the White House, Texas governor George W. Bush took a similarly soft approach, though one that came from the right. A born-again Christian, he shared Bill Clinton’s ability to discuss his faith OPENLY. When Republican primary candidates were asked to name their favorite philosopher in a 1999 debate, for instance, Bush immediately named Christ, “because He changed my heart.” Despite the centrality of faith in his own life, Bush assured voters that he would not implement the rigid agenda of the religious right. Borrowing a phrase from author Marvin Olasky, Bush called himself a “compassionate conservative” and said he would take a lighter approach to social issues including abortion and gay rights than culture warriors such as Pat Buchanan. But many on the right took issue with the phrase. For some, the “compassionate” qualifier implicitly condemned mainstream conservatism as heartless; for others, the phrase seemed an empty marketing gimmick. (As Republican speechwriter David Frum put it, “Love conservatism but hate arguing about abortion? Try our new compassionate conservatism—great ideological taste, now with less controversy.”) But the candidate backed his words with deeds, distancing himself from the ideologues in his party. In a single week in October 1999, for instance, Bush criticized House Republicans for “BALANCING the budget on the backs of the poor” and lamented that all too often “my party has painted an image of America slouching toward Gomorrah.”

In concrete terms, Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” constituted a promise to empower private religious and community organizations and thereby expand their role in the provision of social services. This “faith­ based initiative” became the centerpiece of his campaign. In his address to the 2000 Republican National Convention, Bush heralded the work of Christian CHARITIES and called upon the nation to do what it could to sup­port  them. After  his inauguration, Bush moved swiftly to make the pro­posal a reality. Indeed, the longest  section  of his 2001 inaugural address was an expansive reflection on the idea. “America,  at its best, is compassionate,” he observed. “Church and charity, synagogue and mosque  lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws.” Bush promoted the initiative at his first Na­tional Prayer Breakfast as well. But it was ill-fated. Hamstrung by a lack of clear direction during the administration’s first months, it was quickly overshadowed by a new emphasis on national security after the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Bush CONTINUED to advance his vision of a godly nation. SOON after 9/11,  he made a special trip to the Islamic Center of Washington, the very same mosque  that  had opened its doors  to celebrate the Eisenhower inauguration a half century earlier. No sitting president had ever visited an Islamic house of worship, but Bush made clear by his words and deeds there that he considered Muslims part of the nation’s diverse religious community. He denounced recent acts of violence against Muslims and Arab Americans in no uncertain terms. “Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America,” he said; “they  represent the worst of humankind and they should be ashamed.” Referring to Islam as a “religion of peace” and citing the Koran, he closed  his address with the same words of inclusion he would have used  before  any audience, religious  or otherwise: “God bless us all.” The president was not alone in enlisting religious patriotism to demonstrate national unity after  the attacks. On September 12, 2001, congressional representatives from both parties joined together on  the Capitol steps to sing “God Bless America.”Meanwhile, several states that did not ALREADY require recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance in their schools introduced bills to do just that.

But the efforts to use the pledge as a source of unity were soon  thrown into disarray. In June 2002, a federal court ruled that  the phrase “one na­tion under God” violated the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of a state religion. The case Newdow v. Elk Grove Unified School District had been filed in 2000 by Michael Newdow, an emergency room DOCTOR who complained that his daughter’s rights were infringed because she was forced to “watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that ours is ‘one nation under God.” In a 2-to-1 decision, the court agreed. It held that the phrase was just as objectionable as a statement that “we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.” The reaction from political leaders was as swift as it was predictable. The Senate suspended debate on a pending military spending bill to draft a resolution condemning the ruling, while dozens of House members took to the Capitol steps to recite the pledge and sing “God Bless America” one more time. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer announced that the president thought the decision was “ridiculous”; Democratic senator Tom Daschle called it “nuts.” The reaction was so pronounced, in fact, that the appeals court delayed implementation of its ruling until an appeal could be heard.

As the case made its way through the courts, the nation had to reckon anew with the meaning of “one nation under God.” ACCORDING to Newdow, an atheist, the language of the amended pledge clearly took “one side in the quintessential religious question ‘Does God exist?’” The Bush administration, defending the pledge, asserted that reciting it was no more a religious act than using a coin with “In God We Trust” inscribed on it; both merely acknowledged the nation’s heritage. A separate brief filed by conservative religious organizations, however, argued that the pledge was “both theological and political.” Reviving claims of the Christian libertarians, it asserted that the words “under God” were added to underscore the concept of limited government. They were meant as a reminder that “government is not the highest authority in human affairs” because, as the Declaration of Independence claimed, “inalienable rights come from God.” In June 2004, the Supreme Court ruled that Newdow technically lacked standing to bring the suit and thus dismissed the lower court’s ruling, dodging the issue for the time being.

Having survived that challenge in the courts, the concept of “one nation under God” thrived on the campaign trail. Seeking to rally religious voters for the 2004 election, Republican strategist Karl Rove advocated a “play-to-the-base” plan  to exploit  the concerns of the  religious right for electoral gain.The president passed two major  pieces of pro-life legisla­tion  and  then joined the campaign for a Federal Marriage Amendment to ban homosexual unions. Many on the right saw the coming campaign as the kind of”religious war” that  Pat Buchanan heralded a decade before. The Bush campaign worked  to capitalize on “the God gap” in the elector­ate, mobilizing religious conservatives in record  numbers. In Allentown, Pennsylvania, one backer erected  a billboard that summed up the unofficial strategy of the Republicans: “Bush  Cheney ’04-0ne Nation Under God.” The Democrats, meanwhile, gave the politics  of religion compara­tively little  attention. John Kerry’s presidential campaign relegated much of its national religious outreach to a twenty-eight-year-old newcomer who  had  virtually no institutional support, not even an old  DATABASE of contacts. “The matchup between the two parties  in pursuit of religious voters wasn’t just David versus  Goliath,” the  journalist Amy Sullivan wrote.”It was David  versus Goliath and the Philistines and the Assyrians and  the Egyptians, with a few plagues thrown in for good measure.”

* * *

The notable exception to the  Democrats’ avoidance  of re­ligious  rhetoric came  at the party’s national convention. Then a largely unknown state  senator from  Illinois,  Barack  Obama introduced himself to the country with a stirring speech that emphasized religious values as a source of national unity. Obama dismissed  those who  would “use faith as a wedge to divide  us,” proclaiming to loud  applause  that  ”we worship an ‘awesome  God’ in the blue states.” “We are one people,” Obama insisted, “all of us pledging allegiance  to the Stars  and Stripes, all of us defending the United States  of America.” Citing the Declaration of Independence, he rooted his fellow citizens’ rights in their  Creator but insisted  that  their responsibilities stemmed from  God  as well. What “makes this  country work,”  Obama observed, was a belief  based  on  lessons  in  the  Bible: “I am my brother’s keeper; I am  my sister’s keeper.” He  ended  his ADDRESS with  an optimistic invocation of piety and  patriotism reminiscent of the speeches  of Ronald Reagan. “The audacity of hope!” he proclaimed. “In the end,  that  is God ‘s greatest gift to us, the  bedrock of this  nation.” As the crowd roared, he completed his speech with a now-familiar ritual: “God bless you.”

The  keynote address made Obama a contender in the presidential contest just four years later, but it did not protect him from doubts about his commitment to his God and his country. In early 2008, inflammatory comments made by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his longtime pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, came to light, threatening to cripple his campaign. In an excerpt from a 2003 sermon replayed endlessly on cable news networks, the fiery preacher told his congregation that African Americans should condemn the United States. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human!” Wright shouted. “God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.” Obama stated that he thought his pastor’s “rants” were “appalling,” and in March 2008, he confronted the controversy in a major speech in Philadelphia. Though race, rather than religion, emerged as the central theme, Obama employed the language of faith to explain his pastor’s statements and, at the same time, distance himself from them. “I have asserted a firm conviction—a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people,” Obama insisted, “that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.”

Religion played an even more prominent role in the race for the Republican nomination. In a November 2007 debate, CNN showed a videotaped question from a voter who held up a Christian version of the Bible and said, “How you answer this question will tell us everything we need to know about you: Do you believe every word of this book?” The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer insisted that the candidates should have answered that it was “none of your damn business,” but instead all of them “bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism.” Indeed, the Republican field seemed especially eager to outdo one another’s professions of piety. Arizona senator John McCain, who had boldly denounced Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance” in his losing bid in the 2000 primaries, spent much of his second run mending fences with them. He made a major address at Falwell’s Liberty University, where he asserted, despite all evidence to the contrary, that “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.” New York City  mayor  Rudy  Giuliani, meanwhile, proudly won  Robertson’s endorsement. Not to be outdone, Arkansas gov­ernor  Mike  Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, attributed his strong showing in the polls to “the same power that  helped  a little boy with  two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people.”

No  Republican candidate, however, was challenged more by ques­tions of faith than Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. The first Mor­mon to make a significant run for the presidency, he found his campaign struggling to overcome  distrust by evangelical voters  at the party’s base. Romney staged a major speech on “Faith in America” at the presidential library  of George H. W. Bush. Though he stood by his faith and made clear that he shared common ground with more traditional Christians, Romney only used the word “Mormon” once.  Instead, the  bulk of his address focused on the proper place of faith in American politics. “Freedom requires religion,” he argued, “just as religion requires freedom.” He promised never to force his own values on the nation as a whole, but also said he believed that religious principles in general were essential to the continued health of the nation. The Constitution rested on a “foundation of faith,” Romney said, and its framers “did not countenance the elimina­tion of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘under God,’ and in God we do indeed  trust.”

* * *

These invocations reveal that the rhetoric and rituals of public religion have lived on to the  present day. Indeed, if anything, such touchstones of religious nationalism have only be ­ come  more deeply lodged  in American political culture  over time, as the innovations of one generation became familiar  traditions for the next. But as these  religious notes have been drummed into  the national  conscious­ ness, almost by rote, we have forgotten their origins. More than that, we have forgotten they have origins at all.

And their origins,  it turns out, are rather surprising. The rites of our public religion originated not in a spiritual crisis, but rather in the polit­ical and economic turmoil of the Great Depression. The story of busi­ness leaders enlisting clergymen in their war against the New Deal is one that has been largely obscured  by the very ideology that resulted from it.

Previous accounts of the tangled relationship between Christianity and capitalism have noted  the “uneasy alliance” between businessmen and the religious right which helped elect Ronald Reagan and end the New Deal order, but the careers of the Christian libertarians in the 1930s and 1940s show that their alliance was present at the creation of the New Deal. Their ideology of “freedom under God” did not topple the regulatory state as they hoped, but thanks to the evangelism of conservative clergymen such as James Fifield, Abraham Vereide, and Billy Graham, it ultimately accomplished more than its corporate creators ever dreamed possible. It convinced a wide range of Americans that their country had been, and should always be, a Christian nation.

In the early 1950s, the long crusade of the Christian libertarians apparently reached its triumphant climax with the election of Dwight Eisenhower. But the new president proved to be transformative in a sense his corporate backers had not anticipated. Although he was certainly sympathetic to the secular ends they sought, Eisenhower proved to be much more interested in the spiritual language they had invented as a means of achieving those ends. Uncoupling their religious rhetoric from its roots in the fight against the New Deal, he considerably broadened its appeal, expanding its reach well beyond the initial circle of conservative Protestants to welcome Americans across the political and religious spectrum. In doing so, Eisenhower ushered in an unprecedented religious revival, one that temporarily filled the nation’s churches and synagogues but permanently altered its political culture. From then on, the federal government, which the Christian libertarians had long denounced as godless, was increasingly seen as quite godly instead. Congress cemented these changes, adding “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance and adopting “In God We Trust” as the nation’s first official motto. Hollywood and Madison Avenue, meanwhile, helped promote this understanding of America as a religious nation and Americans as an inherently religious people.

The new rituals of public religion crafted in the Eisenhower era were seen at the time as symbolic flourishes with little substance to them. But the rites and rhetoric that Eugene Rostow dismissed as mere “ceremonial deism” in 1962 were soon revealed to have incredible political power. National controversies over school prayer—which unfolded first in the Supreme Court and then in Congress—demonstrated that the symbols and slogans  of the  Eisenhower era, instituted less than a decade  earlier, had quickly been embraced by many  Americans as ironclad  evidence of the nation’s  religious roots.  As conservatives fought to restore  school prayer and to roll back other social changes  in the turbulent 1960s,  they  rallied around   phrases  like  ”one  nation under   God.” As a result,  the religious rhetoric that  had  recently  been  used  to unite  Americans began  to drive them further apart. At the decade’s end, Richard Nixon helped complete this polarization of the nation’s public religion, using it to advance divisive policies both  at home  and abroad.

This HISTORY reminds us that our public religion  is, in large measure, an invention of the modern era. The ceremonies and symbols that breathe life into the belief that we are “one nation under God” were not, as many Americans believe, created alongside  the nation itself. Their parentage stems not from  the founding fathers but from an era much closer  to our own, the era of our own fathers and mothers, our grandfathers and grand­mothers.This fact need not diminish their  importance; fresh traditions can be more powerful than older ones adhered  to out of habit. Neverthe­less, we do violence  to our  past if we treat  certain  phrases —  ”one nation under God,”"In God We Trust” —  as sacred texts handed down to us from  the nation’s founding. Instead, we are better served if we understand these  utterances for what they are: political slogans that speak not to the origins of our nation but to a specific point in its not-so-distant past. If they are to mean anything to us now, we should understand what they meant  then.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2015, 01:44:03 pm »

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=41915827176
Sound The Battle Cry - Lordship Salvation: Lordship of Christ or a Divided Christ?
4/19/15

Audio: http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=41915827176
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: February 19, 2016, 11:38:30 am »

http://www.coachisright.com/the-trouble-with-scalia/
The Trouble With Scalia
February 19, 2016 

The late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is being praised as a conservative icon, brilliant writer, and all around great guy. Also included in the obituaries are descriptions of his friendship with his fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This relationship went well beyond mere collegiality. In fact, they saw each other socially quite frequently, partied together, and took vacations together.

During a joint appearance with the woman he also has called his “best buddy” on the bench, Scalia said, “Why don’t you call us the odd couple?”

“What’s not to like?” Scalia joked at an event hosted by the Smithsonian Associates. “Except her views on the law, of course.”

So, here’s the problem: These two justices disagreed on virtually everything, from abortion and gun control, to gay marriage, capital punishment, and Obamacare. He was a devout Catholic, and she is a secular Jew. Surely, one can be cordial and professional with a person who holds opposite positions on essentially every major political, social, and cultural issue—but why go out of your way to hang out with such an individual?

What would Scalia have to suppress to preferentially spend lots of time with Ginsburg? Would YOU choose to socialize with someone who disagrees with you on so much, even if you both might like the same classical music?

And, then it came to me. For all his brilliant opinions, and all of his conservative bona fides, Antonin Scalia must have viewed being a Supreme Court justice as his day job, and whatever passion he put into his writings was strictly vocational. What incredible emotional detachment! (If that’s what it really was.)

You hear all the time about doctors and homicide detectives who “don’t get emotionally involved” with the death and destruction around them. However, nine times out of ten, that is just pure bravado. And for that amazing one out of ten, he doesn’t get emotionally involved because he can’t. He’s seen too much, and he is now but an empty shell.

We wonder then, was Scalia truly able to separate work from his personal life, or was he actually an empty shell, posing as a happy Renaissance Man? Where did he hide the passion for his legal theories after hours?
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 10, 2016, 08:14:30 am »

Repost b/c previous one uploaded was incomplete...

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 22, 2016, 01:08:30 pm »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/now-that-pope-francis-absolves-abortions-will-conservatives_us_58336f2ee4b08c963e3443b2
Pope Francis Absolves Abortions, but Will Conservatives?
11/21/16

Today, Pope Francis granted priests authority to absolve abortions. The conservative establishment must be panicking, as they’ve relied on this hot-button issue for decades. It was a sure-fire way to get Christian conservatives to the ballot box.

Conservative Republicans have had over 40 years to repeal Roe v. Wade, but let’s be honest: they have no intention of doing it.

When we look at the history of abortion, it’s self-evident Roe v. Wade was not a partisan issue. In fact, in 1973 six of the seven justices who passed abortion were Republican appointees. Abortion was broadly accepted by Republicans and Democrats. After all, it was more a victory for doctors who would no longer face criminal charges.

    A Gallup poll in the summer of 1972 found 64 percent of Americans agreeing with the statement that “The decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.” A majority of all identified groups, including Catholics, agreed with that statement. There was almost no difference between men and women. The group expressing the strongest agreement – 68 percent – was made up of Republicans.

When did this change?

In 1979, on a conference call, the religious right, in an effort to rile up their base, decided the best issue to politicize would be abortion. At first, evangelicals wanted nothing to do with it, but the GOP realized they could use it on their political platform as a wedge issue to drive Christians to the polls. Watch Samantha Bee’s recent segment on this very topic.

The Republican leadership didn’t care about the issue until they realized its political capital. When abortion became partisan, it was a deliberate attempt to manipulate voters. It is still used successfully to this day, and practically ensures they’ll never repeal it.

If Republicans ended abortion, they could no longer use it as a campaign issue.

The limits on abortions in certain states, as well as all abortion-related campaigning, serve one - and only one - purpose: To rile up voters of faith to get them to the polls. (Not unlike North Carolina’s Transgender Bathroom nonsense. This political theater cost the state $400 million, but hey, at least it helped Republicans keep the majority of the state red.)

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: November 22, 2016, 04:18:28 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: November 23, 2016, 10:05:28 pm »

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/5-points-on-the-gop-megadonor-trump-picked-for-education-secretary/ar-AAkGbUb?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp
5 Points On The GOP Megadonor Trump Picked For Education Secretary

President-elect Donald Trump's announcement Wednesday that he would nominate GOP megadonor Betsy DeVos to be secretary of education was welcomed by Republicans, particularly those passionate about charter schools and school vouchers, which DeVos has championed.

Progressives, meanwhile, warned that her selection was dangerous for public education and pointed to other controversial causes, including anti-LGBT initiatives and anti-abortion measures, that DeVos and her family have supported.

Here's what you need to know about Trump's pick to lead the Department of Education.

DeVos comes from a GOP mega-donor family based in Michigan

Betsy DeVos and her husband, Dick, have been compared to the Koch brothers for their financial involvement in Republican politics. According to a 2014 Mother Jones profile of the DeVos clan, the family has spent at least $200 million on conservative causes. Their contributions have gone out far and wide, in terms of the politicians they’ve backed and the issues they've championed. No family donated more in support of Republican candidates in 2015 than the DeVoses, according to an analysis by The Hill.

DeVos' father-in-law, Richard DeVos, co-founded Amway and owns the NBA team the Orlando Magic. The DeVos family’s business ventures and political beliefs often work in tandem, Mother Jones reported, noting that a free market think-tank is run out of the Amway headquarters. Dick DeVos, meanwhile, ran unsuccessfully for Michigan governor in 2006, a campaign on which the couple spent $35.4 million, according to the Washington Post.

Betsy DeVos herself has worked for a number of GOP campaign outfits, and now runs a political action committee along with her husband that has supported numerous Republican politicians.

“I know a little something about soft money, as my family is the largest single contributor of soft money to the national Republican Party,” DeVos wrote in a 1997 Roll Call guest column, according to Jane Mayer’s book "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right."

“I have decided, however, to stop taking offense at the suggestion that we are buying influence. Now I simply concede the point," DeVos wrote.

She is an ardent supporter of school vouchers and charter school expansion

Much of DeVos’ political activity has been focused on the expansion of charter schools and school vouchers, putting her selection in line with Trump’s campaign proposal to shift $20 billion in federal education funding into state block grants to enroll children in charter and private schools.

The DeVos family bankrolled a failed 2000 Michigan ballot initiative that would have required that students enrolled in failing public school districts be offered vouchers for private school tuition.

Though the measure was rejected soundly by voters, the DeVoses doubled down on the issue and formed a political action committee to support pro-voucher candidates nationwide, according to ChalkBeat, a nonprofit news organization focused on education. They also operate philanthropic organizations known for giving to entities aligned with the charter school movement, including faith-based schools and conservative think tanks, Inside Philanthropy reported.

She has family ties to the Family Research Council and Blackwater

School choice is not the only conservative cause with which DeVos has a family tie. Her father, Edgar Prince, helped Gary Bauer create the Family Research Council, an influential social conservative group that opposes gay rights and abortion. Her brother, Erik Prince, is the ex-Navy SEAL who founded the private security firm Blackwater, which was embroiled in controversy over its involvement in the Iraq War.

The DeVos family has also contributed millions of dollars to back candidates supportive of anti-abortion measures, as well as towards groups that oppose same-sex marriage, ReWire reported in March.

Mainstream Republicans are welcoming her nomination

Trump's selection of DeVos was cheered by many in the GOP establishment, as Republicans have mostly rallied around the issue of school choice that had once been considered on the fringe. The DeVos family’s longstanding financial relationship with the Republican Party probably does not hurt either. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, one of Trump’s most bitter primary foes, called DeVos “an outstanding pick for Secretary of Education.”

Not everyone in conservative circles welcomed the announcement, though, given that DeVos has waffled on the topic of Common Core that is so vehemently opposed by the right. The normally pro-Trump website Breitbart News blared in a headline as talk of DeVos' nomination picked up that she is “pro-Common Core” and that her family donated to the Clinton Foundation.

DeVos on Tuesday afternoon tweeted out a statement clarifying that she was not, in fact, in favor of Common Core, the federal educational standards that have been endorsed by President Obama as well as by some Republicans.

To the left, her nomination is a bellwether for privatization of public schools under Trump

Education advocates on the left, particularly those skeptical of school choice, criticized DeVos' selection for the job.

National Education Association President Lily Eskelsen García said in a statement that DeVos’ “efforts over the years have done more to undermine public education than support students.”

“She has lobbied for failed schemes, like vouchers — which take away funding and local control from our public schools — to fund private schools at taxpayers’ expense,” she said. “These schemes do nothing to help our most-vulnerable students while they ignore or exacerbate glaring opportunity gaps. She has consistently pushed a corporate agenda to privatize, de-professionalize and impose cookie-cutter solutions to public education.”

Randi Weingarten, the president of American Federation of Teachers, said that DeVos was “the most ideological, anti-public education nominee” for education secretary since the cabinet-level position was created.

“In nominating DeVos, Trump makes it loud and clear that his education policy will focus on privatizing, defunding and destroying public education in America,” Weingarten said in a statement.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: December 02, 2016, 07:26:55 am »

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trump%E2%80%99s-cabinet-choices-deepen-an-age-old-republican-rift/ar-AAl1OgG?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp
Donald Trump’s Cabinet Choices Deepen an Age-Old Republican Rift
12/1/16

WASHINGTON — As President-elect Donald J. Trump fills his cabinet with people of wealth and power, he is rekindling animosity between his anti-establishment supporters and more traditional Republicans, a rift that could test the endurance of his new political coalition.

Some supporters, including those closest to Mr. Trump, are warning him that after running for president as a disrupter of the political and ruling classes, he risks charges of hypocrisy by bringing into his administration the kinds of people he vowed to drive out of Washington.

“It’s a delicate dance,” said Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins added that no one fully knew what to expect from the new president or his cabinet, or what the role of the conservative movement would be for the next four years.

“Part of this is just establishing what those relationships and those boundaries are going to be like,” he said. “It’s imperative that the Trump administration walks in lock step with the Trump campaign in terms of how their policies match their promises.”

Those expressing unease with Mr. Trump’s appointments, or potential appointments, include two factions on the right. There are the traditional conservatives, like Mr. Perkins, who would prefer hard-liners and are particularly unhappy that Mitt Romney is being considered as secretary of state. And there are the nationalists who are chiefly focused on immigration and trade and recoil at the prospect of Mr. Trump’s being surrounded by Wall Street figures.

Mr. Trump announced on Tuesday that he would nominate Elaine L. Chao — a cabinet secretary under President George W. Bush, a member of many corporate boards, and the wife of the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell — to be his transportation secretary. On Wednesday morning, his picks were Wilbur Ross, the billionaire investor, for commerce secretary and Todd Ricketts, an owner of the Chicago Cubs and one of the president-elect’s most important fund-raisers, as deputy commerce secretary.

Then, to lead the Treasury Department, Mr. Trump named Steven Mnuchin, a former banker at Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street firm he pilloried during his campaign as the epitome of a rigged financial system. During the Republican primary contest, Mr. Trump repeatedly brought up the fact that Heidi Cruz, the wife of one of his rivals, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, worked for Goldman.

The apparent contradictions do not seem to bother others on Mr. Trump’s team. Stephen K. Bannon, the president-elect’s chief strategist and the strongest populist voice among his advisers, is himself a wealthy former Goldman Sachs banker and has been supportive of elevating Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Ross, whom he sees as Washington outsiders like him.

But the right-wing writer and filmmaker Mike Cernovich was not so sanguine — especially about Mr. Mnuchin, who not only has a stint at Goldman Sachs on his résumé but also once worked for George Soros, the billionaire financier who contributes to myriad liberal causes.

“Trump’s Treasury Secretary is former Goldman Sachs, former Soros employee,” Mr. Cernovich wrote on Twitter. “WTF is going on at @transition2017?”

“It’s ‘make the establishment and Goldman Sachs great again,’” said Mark Levin, a conservative talk radio host. “This is not Trump draining the swamp. This is the swamp draining Trump.”

Others, while uneasy, expressed cautious hope that the officials would only carry out the populist platform Mr. Trump ran to victory on last month.

“As long as they effectively implement and advocate for the Trump agenda, all this criticism will fade away,” said Laura Ingraham, the conservative radio host.

For some conservatives, Mr. Trump’s decision to reach out to Mr. Romney as a possible secretary of state has been even more puzzling. The onetime head of a private equity firm, Mr. Romney was branded by his fellow Republicans, as well as Democrats, as a symbol of Wall Street during his losing 2012 presidential campaign. Especially after his criticism of Mr. Trump this year, he is seen as the quintessential member of the Republican establishment.

Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker and a confidant of Mr. Trump’s, mocked the scene on Tuesday between the president-elect and Mr. Romney: a sit-down over frog legs and diver scallops at a Manhattan restaurant.

“I’m sure, at an elegant three-star restaurant in New York, that Mitt was fully at home, happy to share his vision of populism,” Mr. Gingrich said on Ms. Ingraham’s program. “Every day this hangs out there,” he said, “it’s harder and more expensive to pick Romney.”

The fight over Mr. Trump’s cabinet raises the same essential questions of how to advance conservatism that split Republicans for the better part of the last decade: whether the party was too compromising on its core principles, too sensitive to shifting demographics and too timid to nominate a hard-line true believer. Now that Mr. Trump has won and shattered those conventions, the message from some of the people who feel the Republican Party turned its back on him is unforgiving.

“Trump came in and slayed the dragon,” said Richard Viguerie, a veteran conservative activist and agitator against the party establishment. “And now he’s going to go back and breathe life into this dragon that voters rejected? It just doesn’t make any sense to us.”

Mr. Viguerie likened a Romney appointment to President Ronald Reagan’s naming George Bush as his running mate in 1980, a decision that many conservatives still look back on with regret, given the relatively centrist agenda Mr. Bush would pursue during his own term as president. “Romney would basically be a Trojan horse,” he said.

Other conservatives are equally incredulous about the idea of nominating Mr. Romney. “A slap in the face,” said L. Brent Bozell, the founder of the Media Research Center, a conservative group that critiques the news media. David Lane, a prominent Christian conservative, said it would be “disastrous for the Republican Party.” Representative Chris Collins of New York said it made little sense for Mr. Trump to appoint a “self-serving egomaniac” like Mr. Romney. Though Mr. Romney remains under serious consideration for the secretary of state job, Mr. Trump and his team are sensitive to the appearance of hypocrisy and are working to maintain the “blue-collar billionaire” image that he nurtured with working-class voters.

On Thursday, Mr. Trump returned to the Rust Belt region that helped deliver the White House to him. He stopped first at an air conditioning factory in Indiana to announce an agreement  that he said would prevent jobs from leaving the country, and then headed to Cincinnati for the first stop on what he calls a thank-you tour, which is planned as a series of campaign-style rallies.

But it is not clear how much his supporters will ultimately care who ends up in the cabinet. His political base has been a forgiving bunch, rarely punishing him for contradictions and backtracking that would hurt other politicians.

Even Mr. Collins conceded that Mr. Trump essentially had carte blanche. “I think they trust, implicitly trust, Donald Trump to make his campaign promises a reality,” he said.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2016, 07:53:51 pm »

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #50 on: January 06, 2017, 03:32:58 pm »

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-first-amendment-defense-act-trump-20170106-story.html
2017 is shaping up to be a banner year for anti-LGBT discrimination
1/6/17


http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/bathroom-bill-state-legislation/index.html
1/6/17
First days of 2017 bring new 'bathroom bills'

(CNN)In the first days of 2017, legislators in five states have introduced so-called "bathroom bills" restricting access to public accommodations.
Legislative moves this week in Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas and Virginia represent the latest efforts at the center of a broader public debate over transgender rights.

Additionally, lawmakers in Alabama, South Carolina and Washington filed so-called bathroom bills last year for introduction during the upcoming sessions.

Since 2013, at least 24 states have considered restricting access to restrooms, locker rooms and other facilities on the basis of biological sex, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The American Civil Liberties Union in May filed a lawsuit challenging Mississippi's religious freedom law, which critics say will discriminate against gay and transgender people. Part of the law, known as HB 1523, allows employers and school administrators to dictate access to bathrooms, spas, locker rooms "or other intimate facilities and settings."

North Carolina is the only other state to enact the controversial legislation banning people from using public bathrooms that don't correspond to their biological sex as listed on their birth certificates.

Already, backlash against House Bill 2, the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, has caused huge economic losses for the state, such as businesses canceling plans to expand and the NBA moving its All-Star game from Charlotte to another city.

The economic costs, however, have not deterred other states from following suit:

more
« Last Edit: January 06, 2017, 03:40:50 pm by Ecclesiastes 5:1 » Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2017, 10:01:43 am »

A lost man vs. a (likely) false convert. What's the difference?

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/nfl-quarterbacks-colin-kaepernick-tim-tebow-held-two-different-standards-liberal-rascists/
NFL Quarterbacks Colin Kaepernick And Tim Tebow Are Held To Two Very Different Standards By Liberal Racists
Today I want to show you how the Progressive Left not only encourages racism, but they absolutely use racism as a tool to force their agenda on a weak American public who usually winds up kowtowing out of fear. With that, let's take a look at the careers of both former NFL quarterbacks Tim Tebow and Colin Kaepernick.


by Geoffrey Grider August 20, 2017
If the NFL won’t take in a player like Colin Kaepernick that no team owner or coach of any color seems to want, it’s cannot be because Kaepernick’s production tanked.

Today I want to show you how the Progressive Left not only encourages racism, but they absolutely use racism as a tool to force their agenda on a weak American public who usually winds up kowtowing out of fear. With that, let’s take a look at the careers of both former NFL quarterbacks Tim Tebow and Colin Kaepernick.

    BOTH MEN STARTED WITH GREAT FANFARE: Colin Kaepernick was named the Western Athletic Offensive Player of the Year twice and was the Most Valuable Player of the 2008 Humanitarian Bowl. Kaepernick was selected by the San Francisco 49ers in the second round of the 2011 NFL Draft. Tim Tebow won both the Heisman Trophy and the BCS National Championship while playing for the Florida Gators in college. He was drafted by the NFL’s Denver Broncos in 2010 and joined the New York Jets in 2012.
   
BOTH MEN HAD A GREAT ROOKIE YEAR: The Washington Post had this to say about Kaepernick’s start in the NFL. “In his first 16 career starts — the equivalent of a full regular season — he accumulated the following stat line: 259 completions in 433 pass attempts for 3,627 yards, with 22 touchdowns and 10 interceptions, along with 674 rushing yards and five rushing touchdowns. At that point, Kaepernick was still three weeks shy of his 26th birthday, and appeared to be one of the game’s most valuable assets: a young, talented quarterback.” Tim Tebow, as you may recall, had such a great rookie year that he not only took his team to the Super Bowl Playoffs, he also managed to beat my favorite team, the Pittsburgh Steelers, in the process. Wow, that’s really good!

Now please pay attention because now we are going to show you their differences

You can safely say that both the black Colin Kaepernick and the white Tim Tebow were given a fair and equal shot in the NFL. Both men were judged not by their skin color, but rather by their talents and potential. Since the current NFL player roster league-wide is made up of 70% black and 30% white and other races, you could make a pretty good case that black people are preferred in the NFL. But that is not the case we are making.

Let’s continue in our look at the two QB’s:

    BOTH MEN KNEELED AT SOME POINT DURING THE GAME: Colin Kaepernick exercised his First Amendment right to Free Speech by choosing to publicly kneel during the playing of the National Anthem. He said he did this because America was “against black people”. (remember the NFL is 70% black players). Kaepernick’s kneeling earned him plenty of enemies who did not like what he did. Tim Tebow exercised his First Amendment right to Free Speech by choosing to publicly kneel in prayer to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give Him the glory. Tebow’s kneeling earned him plenty of mockers and detractors who did not like what he did. Both men’s rights to behave in the way of their choosing are protected and guaranteed under America’s founding documents.
    BOTH MEN WERE LET GO WHEN THEY DID NOT PRODUCE: The same Washington Post story that praised Colin Kaepernick’s early efforts went on to say this about him as his production decreased.

        “But the 49ers roster has been decimated since that Super Bowl appearance, and with that, Kaepernick’s production has significantly declined. He went from being an extremely efficient quarterback in 2012, to a very good one in 2013, to a below-average one in 2014. This year? Kaepernick has been the least efficient passer in the NFL, as measured by Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt. The graph shows Kaepernick’s Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt average in each year since 2012, alongside the league average rates. As you can see, the steady decline has been remarkable for a young quarterback who should be entering his prime years. Given this trajectory, is it time for the 49ers to move on from Kaepernick?”

    Tim Tebow, attaining the incredible success of reaching the playoffs his first year was rewarded by…getting let go from the Denver Broncos. This is what John Elway gave as the reason for cutting a QB who brought his team to the playoffs first year.

    A couple days after the loss to the Patriots, the Broncos’ chief football decision-maker, John Elway, said this about Tebow’s future:

        “At the same age, I had a long way to go, too. But I probably, at times, moved too much, relied too much on moving around. Hopefully I can relay that [to Tebow], because my progression as a quarterback was that I finally realized later in my career that I wished I’d learned [earlier] the fact that you do have to win from the pocket.”.

    And there it is, the bottom line. It’s why the Broncos chased Peyton Manning, why they traded Tebow, why they moved on when they had the chance. They simply decided a running quarterback is fine, but he has to throw better, be more accurate to win trophies in the Sunday league.” source

If you have half a brain in your head (if your a Liberal it’s most likely half a brain), you can clearly see why both Colin Kaepernick and Tim Tebow were let go. It has very little to do with public prayer, public rejection of the Pledge of Allegiance, or even with skin color. Both these once-talented men were unable to keep producing at a level required of marquee players in the NFL.

Plain and simple, that’s the reason. Stats and money.

If you want to riot and boycott and whine that Kaepernick is being treated poorly because he’s black, you’re an idiot. When his numbers were up, he had a job. When his numbers dropped he lost his job. Basic math, people. If you want to riot and boycott and whine that Tebow was let go because of his strong Christian stance, you’re also an idiot. Tebow was let go because while he had some awesome moments, he had no consistency. More basic math.

In the end, nobody wanted Tim Tebow because nobody wanted him. And now nobody wants Colin Kaepernick because nobody wants him. And right here is where the rubber meets the road.

When the NFL rejected Tim Tebow, he was forced to first become a sportscaster to put food on the table and now is a baseball player on the Mets farm team. He went where someone wanted him. Yay! He didn’t whine and cry about being shunned for being a white man in a black-dominated football league, and he didn’t play the religion persecution card not even for a second. He did what he had to do, and he’s doing great.
Liberal racists call for an #NFLBlackout

After the NFL rejected Colin Kaepernick, the entire Black Lives Matter thug community has gone into an uproar. At this very moment, they are demanding that Kaepernick be given a team tryout. Demanding! And if the NFL won’t bow to their demands, they are threatening a league-wide boycott until they do. Are you stinkin’ kidding me??

    “There will be no football in the state of Georgia if Colin Kaepernick is not on a training camp roster and given an opportunity to pursue his career,” Gerald Griggs of the Atlanta NAACP told Fox 5. Riggs warned that if Kaepernick remains unsigned to a deal as of 5 p.m. Sept. 17, “We are going to have the world’s largest tailgate, and that tailgate will not go into Mercedes-Benz Stadium.” (Riggs was referring to the new $1.6 billion home of the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons.)

    “We will take a knee, and we will continue to take a knee on the NFL until they act with one voice,” Riggs said.

Why are they doing this? Because in their deluded half-brains, no black person can be let go, fired or disliked for any other reason that because that person is black.

When Obama was president, if you didn’t like his Marxist behavior, it was not because he was a Marxist. It was because he was black. If you question him on his pro-Muslim and anti-Christian proclamations, it was only because he was black. Never because he was pro-Muslim and anti-Christian.

So now, if the NFL won’t take in a player like Colin Kaepernick that no team owner or coach of any color seems to want, it’s cannot be because Kaepernick’s production tanked. No. Never that. The only reason it could possible be is because he’s (partially) black and the black man is not welcome in a “white man’s game”.

Did I tell you that the NFL player roster, of players recruited and picked by predominately white people, is 70% black?

Somebody should let Spike Lee know.

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2017, 06:52:02 pm »

http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/fed-useless-republicans-trump-finds-success-new-alliances-democrat-leaders/
Fed Up With Useless, Do-Nothing Republicans, Trump Finds Success In New Alliances With Democrat Leaders
Frustrated by the failure of GOP majorities in both chambers to pass his agenda, President Trump followed through on threats to work with Democrats. Signs suggest it was not a one-off deal, as the president already is discussing other topics with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Hurricanes Harvey and Irma helped spark his decision. Trump was clear that, especially on storm relief, he wanted fast, bipartisan action that reflected the way ordinary Americans were helping each other, especially in hard-hit Houston. With Irma aiming at Florida and the southeast, the president recognized that the public would have rightly viewed political squabbling during national emergencies as an infuriating failure.

9/10/17

Keep these numbers in mind: 316 to 90 and 80 to 17. They were the lopsided votes in the House and Senate in support of the deal President Trump made with Democratic leaders on storm aid, the debt limit and government funding.

EDITOR’S NOTE: From the way the GOP in Washington are acting, you would think they were the ones that lost the election and not the Democrats. The Republicans have spent more time resisting President Trump than they have passing the legislation the people elected them to do. President Trump is 100% correct in now bypassing the pusillanimous GOP and forming new alliances with the Democrats. The GOP would do well to remember that we didn’t vote “Republican” in 2016, we voted for Donald Trump. Get on the Trump Train, Republicans, or get run over. That is all.

Remarkably, all the no voters were Republicans. The numbers shout that we are witnessing a potential turning point in the Trump presidency, one that could further shake up Washington and rattle the calcified political parties.

Frustrated by the failure of GOP majorities in both chambers to pass his agenda, President Trump followed through on threats to work with Democrats. Signs suggest it was not a one-off deal, as the president already is discussing other topics with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma helped spark his decision. Trump was clear that, especially on storm relief, he wanted fast, bipartisan action that reflected the way ordinary Americans were helping each other, especially in hard-hit Houston. With Irma aiming at Florida and the southeast, the president recognized that the public would have rightly viewed political squabbling during national emergencies as an infuriating failure.

Still, the circumstances didn’t stop all the GOP grumbling, with some Republicans astonished that a president from their party had accepted Dems’ terms on the debt limit to get a quick deal. Not surprisingly, Trump was hardly apologetic, firing back on Twitter: “Republicans, sorry, but I’ve been hearing about Repeal & Replace for 7 years, didn’t happen!” — a reference to the failure to overturn ObamaCare.
He also issued a warning on tax reform, tweeting: “Republicans must start the Tax Reform/Tax Cut legislation ASAP. Don’t wait until the end of September. Needed now more than ever. Hurry!”

The developments show the president shedding the party straitjacket and being true to his disrupter candidacy. If he continues and is successful, he could create a new coalition that includes revolving members of both parties, depending on the issue.

That’s an ambitious scenario, given the hyper-partisan atmosphere in Washington and the cultural and political chasms across the country. But at least the president is proving in the short term that it is possible to get things done — and get them done quickly, a point he emphasized by signing the legislative package as soon as it reached his desk.

Naturally, the prospect of a bipartisan approach alarms both ends of the political spectrum, with leftists angry that Schumer and Pelosi dared to even talk to Trump, let alone make a deal. That attitude is both a cause and effect of the gridlock that has gripped the capital for the better part of two decades and turned compromise into an insult.

Yet beyond the professional activists, ideologues and consultants, much of America yearns for more government cooperation and less combat.

Like children watching their parents fight, most voters just want a productive peace, not an endless battle for ­total victory that yields nothing of common value. Above all, they want a government that works for them, not one fixated on partisan scorekeeping and ideological litmus tests.

Indeed, Trump’s promise to change Washington was a key ingredient in his victory, and he may be uniquely positioned to carve out a new model. Throughout his business life, he’s been on both sides of big issues, and comes to the presidency with less of a fixed political core than anyone in ­recent memory.

That’s made him understandingly suspect to many conservatives and his inexperience has been compounded by mistakes, but that outsider, pragmatic perspective can now work in his favor. If he can find both common ground and real solutions, we might look back one day and see a more bipartisan approach to governing as the one silver lining of the weather calamities of 2017. source
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: September 14, 2017, 08:51:18 pm »



http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=91417740492

The Spirit of Constant Conspiracy And Paranoia
9/14/2017 (THU)
Audio: http://mp3.sa-media.com/download/91417740492/91417740492.mp3
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: October 12, 2017, 04:35:23 pm »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/10/marco-rubio-headlines-fundraiser-for-anti-trump-senator-jeff-flake/
10/10/12
Marco Rubio Headlines Fundraiser for Anti-Trump Senator Jeff Flake

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) attended a fundraiser for Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) on Monday in a bid to support his 2018 Senate reelection campaign against challenger Kelli Ward.

Rubio was the headline speaker at the exclusive event in Scottsdale, Arizona, for which lunch tickets cost $100 and VIP tickets cost $500.

Both Rubio and Flake were part of the “Gang of Eight” that proposed the 2013 immigration bill that sought to provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Flake subsequently endorsed Rubio’s failed 2016 presidential campaign.

When asked by Breitbart News why he endorsed Flake, Rubio’s office did not return a request for comment.

Flake has been a prominent critic of President Donald Trump from the outset, having refused to back his presidential campaign and regularly attacking the policies of his administration, particularly those regarding immigration. Flake proudly describes himself as a “globalist.”

Meanwhile, Trump has already signaled his support for Flake’s primary challenger Kelli Ward, describing Flake as “weak on borders” and “toxic.”

A poll conducted by JMC Analytics in August found that Ward already has a 25-point lead against Flake more than a year before the election, currently polling at 47 percent support compared to Flake’s 21 percent.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy