From Drudge. “Evangelical Christians? As opposed to some other kind of Christian?
I suppose that defines people who are serious about their faith? Anyhow, according to the article many of them don’t like the designation.
I don’t think I do either. .
“Inside the Sunshine Coin Laundry near the Piggly Wiggly supermarket, Lagretta Ellington removed her family’s clothes from one of the large dryers and began to neatly fold them on a nearby table.
The air was moist and smelled of detergent. The floor was concrete. Her views of the presidential race were anything but. She was unsettled, and distrustful. The candidates just seemed like entertainers.
“I’m going to pray on it,” the 48-year-old Ellington said. “Hopefully, God will lead me in the right direction.”
In the South, now the pivotal battlefield of the 2016 presidential campaign, faith and politics walk the aisle together. And while Christians have always dominated American politics – Bernie Sanders this week became the first non-Christian ever to win a presidential primary in U.S. history – conservative Christians feel under siege.
Marriage is being redefined, and they’re being forced to go along. A new health care law mandates free contraception, even if it violates their core beliefs. Even the greeting “Merry Christmas” feels under assault.
Their anxiety and anger help explain the rise of Republican outsider candidates such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (“Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander in chief”) and even billionaire Donald Trump (“If I’m president, you’re going to see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me”), perhaps the unlikeliest of vessels for such support.
Do we not have any moral compass anymore? ‘
“POLICE ARE crediting a vigilant gun owner with saving the life of an Upper Darby cop Friday after he saw the officer being attacked and surrounded by a large group of teens.
“There were 40 kids. If it wasn’t for the good Samaritan stepping forward, he’d have been dead meat,” Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said. “There’s no doubt they would have attacked him.”
About 3 p.m. every weekday, from six to eight township police officers patrol the area near Upper Darby High School as nearly 4,000 kids pour out of the building on Lansdowne Avenue near School Lane.”
“That afternoon alone, police responded to three fights in three locations near the school. When the dust settled, eight teens, ages 13 to 17, were charged with crimes, and two officers were injured so severely that it’s unclear when they’ll be able to return to work, Chitwood said.”
“An officer who broke up a fight between two teen boys that had attracted a large crowd at that location was holding one of the combatants at bay when the teen’s opponent attacked the officer, Chitwood said.
“As he breaks up the fight, he takes one kid and then the other jumps [on] him. Now he’s fighting two of them and he’s calling for an assist officer at the same time,” Chitwood said. “There’s a crowd of 40 or 50 kids watching the fight, and they all move in towards the officer.”
That’s when the good Samaritan, who lives on the block, came out of his house with a gun in his hand and told the teens to get away from the cop, Chitwood said.”
Odd that the writer of the McClatchy article thinks that Sanders not being a Christian is one of the things that makes Christians feel “under siege” ? I don’t think that’s an issue for most of us, frankly. I suspect many of our past candidates, despite their claims, are not actually Christian either. 😉
I notice that more than a few election stories have portrayed Christians and fearful and angry. 😦 That shouldn’t be true of us — and I don’t think it actually is as true as non-Christians seem to think it is (though there is overall voter ‘anger’ on both sides this year).
But it’s always weird to be part of a group that’s broad-brush stereotyped so often.
A Republican friend and I last night were discussing moving to Canada should things go bad (and Trump or Hill-Bern get elected) … 🙂 Of course, Canada’s even more lost in the wilderness than we are. Sigh.
Some of our church youth go there, btw, on missions under our denomination. And a friend in a sister church is from there originally.
I remember seeing a slide show presentation by our permanent missionaries there some years ago and was struck by how it is a nation that is (or has been), for the most part, quite solidly atheist. Nice to see and know that the light is shining and that the “wind blows where it will.”
Things seem to be breaking toward Trump. He is the closest thing I have ever seen to Hitler. The combination of being a megalomaniac and an effective demagogue is definitely a problem. I don’t think he will kill 6 million people in gas chambers, but I could definitely see him starting World War III or turning the US into a bankrupt pariah state,
I think Christians in the U.S. should give up on retirement. Instead of saving for retirement, I think we need to save to help our children leave this cursed place and get a fresh start.
Where would they go? How long will it last if America falls? If Canada or Australia, New Zealand or England are all Socialist/Parliamentary governments, are already gone then where else can we go?
Didn’t Abe L. say something about the US being the last, best hope? Stop saying you and yours are going to move to someplace else. There is no place to move. It will be a fight there too.
We are afflicted with a combination of problems that are unique:
1. We spend 18% of GDP on semi- socialist healthcare – this makes our businesses completely uncompetitive.
2. Our cities are uninhabitable because of a criminal underclass.
3. A huge and growing share of our population is content to live off a shrinking group of taxpayers.
4. Our culture is a combination of Weimar Germany and Sodom.
5. Our higher education system is an overpriced indoctrination enterprise.
6. Millions of new fakers are claiming “disability” and living off the government each year.
7. Public education is an expensive failure.
8. The Social Security Ponzi scheme will eventually collapse.
9. Increasing numbers of our babies are illegitimate, and are being horribly “raised”.
10. Churches Christian schools and Christian businessmen are under constant attack from perverts and atheists.
Other countries have some of these problems, but we have all of these along with a population that is increasingly lazy, ignorant and immoral.
Should Lot have stayed in Sodom until the bitter end?
Better options may include:
Chile
Singapore
Hong Kong
South Korea
The Cook Islands
Ireland
Mauritius
I think I mentioned we looked into New ZEaland when we visited there in 2002. Beautiful place, pretty empty–it reminded me of a cross between Alaska and the north shore of O’ahu.
Totally secular, we were camping through both islands at Christmas time and saw very little decorations and none with Jesus involved. Churches were empty the times we went.
If you were under 40 years old and had private means or a job, you could emigrate. We were 46 and needed to bring at least $1M to invest in a business or no go.
So we went home. I’d love to visit again, though. It’s gorgeous, right, Jo?
I went to three different churches in New Zealand and was very impressed. The Lord is at work there. One of them I heard a sermon quietly spoken that was absolute truth and folks had come out and filled the place the Sunday evening before Christmas.
Ricky, you don’t want to go to Singapore. It is illegal to own a gun or ammunition there, with very severe penalties for possession and use of firearms, up to and including the death penalty. South Korea is a hedonist paradise, full of plastic surgery and pop culture – the content of their entertainment makes Hollywood look prudish. The Chinese Communists are slowly but surely crushing religious and political freedom in Hong Kong. Any place you choose will have its own set of problems. The old saying that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence is true.
Check out the ‘Royal battle’ post at http://www.powerlineblog.com where they weigh in on options (they’re attorneys over there — can’t copy and paste url on my phone, unfortunately)
Tonights debate was a disaster for civility. Trump gave new meaning to the term bully pulpit. No one could shut him up. CBS did a terrible job controlling the audience and the candidates.
I think that President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Scalia will be dead on arrival at the Senate, regardless of whom Obama selects. I suspect that Obama will reach the same conclusion.
If so, Obama will select the person whose rejection will provide Democrats with the most political ammunition.
Most likely, this means Obama will select an African-American female. That way, when the Senate refuses even to bring the nomination to a vote, the Democratic presidential nominee and Democrats running for Congress can rally African-American voters while also complaining that the GOP is waging war on women.
Political calculation also militates in favor of nominating someone whose leftism isn’t obvious. That way, Republicans won’t easily be able to answer charges of racism and sexism by pointing out that the nominee is “outside the mainstream.” …
___________________________________________
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: If the previous Republican debates have been World War I or II this is is thermonuclear. I have is not seen as many personal attacks or high temperature attacks as we saw in this debate.
__________________________________
I listened to the debate from my phone while driving on the Hollywood/Harbor Freeways, trying to get home amid bumper-to-bumper traffic. Oy.
It appears that Trump has put together a winning coalition. He started with the ignorant and mentally feeble who are susceptible to demagoguery. To those he has added amoral, secular Republicans who are hostile to Christianity. He could not have assembled such a coalition in Chile.
I was disappointed — but sadly not surprised — by some of the rude snark about Scalia I saw pop up so quickly yesterday on FB/social media. 😦 😦 😦
On the debate: I was a little stunned by Trump’s blatant claim that (basically) Bush should have/could have prevented (and maybe knew about?) 9/11. A bridge too far, I think, at least for Republicans.
Kudos to Rubio who later gave an appropriate and spirited defense of the Bush handling of 9/11 and its immediate aftermath.
The Republican presidential candidates’ debate in South Carolina last night must have warmed the hearts of Democrats everywhere. …
… Last night Donald Trump achieved maximum obnoxiousness in his impersonation of Michael Moore. He seemed to be acting as an agent provocateur. His assertion as the leading Republican presidential candidate that President Bush lied us into war with Iraq is simply mind-boggling. He may have spoken on this matter with some forethought, but he appeared to be deranged. At this point he not only damages our public discourse, he damages the Republican Party.
I have thought this has become a two-man race between Trump and Cruz at this point. Trump, however, must view Jeb Bush as a threat in South Carolina and perhaps elsewhere. I doubt it, but maybe so. If so, I don’t think he helped himself in South Carolina last night. …
… The continuing division of the non-Trump vote among several candidates works to Trump’s advantage. Who among this crew has a reasonable prospect of taking it to Hillary Clinton? I have my doubts about all of them, but after last night I can say with certainty that it’s not Trump and that Trump is compounding the difficulty of the task. …
Seen on Facebook, a photo of Obama “saying”, “Go ahead Republicans and delay the Supreme Court nomination until after the election so Hillary or Bernie can nominate me.”
the “wildest” of Hayward’s admittedly VERY unlikely (but kind of fun) imaginings (at the link I posted above at 1:03)
____________________________
… And here’s the wildest thought: Democrats have a big problem with their presidential field, with two essentially unelectable candidates. How about Obama resigns, and Joe Biden appoints Obama to the Supreme Court? And then President Biden in is ideal position to become the nominee for this cycle. It would solve two problems at once. I’m certain Obama doesn’t want to be on the Supreme Court—he wants to have a massive Clinton-style foundation to enable both his lifestyle and his desire to remain a potent political force—but he might like the political effect of Republicans blocking his confirmation to the Supreme Court, which might help whip up Democratic turnout in November. And as Obama is tired and bored with his job, he might like the opportunity to depart it early and let Joe do it.
____________________________
Chas from yesterday: “Congress needs to prohibit the appointment of a radical to replace Scalia, even it it means an eight person court this session.”
Obama will be a lot smarter than that.
I’m convinced he’ll nominate someone who will be hard to reasonably block, more of a moderate (but definitely not a conservative jurist) who is broadly respected. Someone who will make the GOP look entirely partisan and UNreasonable if they try to block him or her. 😉
Chas, Quick! You must trademark your campaign slogan: “Not a socialist; not a nut.” I fear Bloomberg will steal it when he enters the race against Sanders and Trump.
That nominee (Obama) would never make it out of committee.
And only a liberal who agrees with Obama’s agenda would want him deciding whether it’s legal or not when it comes before the court. And he couldn’t be trusted to recuse himself when appropriate either. Only a Kool-Aid drinker would think this is wise.
The hate fest is out of control on Twitter and comment sections everywhere. You can always count on the veil on the so-called compassionate, caring liberals to slip a little, and show their intolerance and hate for opposing views. It’s disgusting.
This is why they shouldn’t get to decide who replaces Scalia. They are unworthy of the honor. If they can show the voters they deserve it, then the voters can elect a Democrat. If not, they can vote Republican. Let the voters decide how the court will swing. That’s what makes the most sense.
Dissenting opinion: If the Republicans nominate the rude buffoon, there is an excellent chance Hillary or Sanders wins the election and the Democrats take back the Senate. In such a case, Obama could be confirmed. To reject him would be “racist”. Furthermore, if he was rejected, the new President would just nominate somebody equally bad or worse. Yes, they are out there – in Boston and San Francisco and Detroit.
And for your reading pleasure, why it’s standard practice to deny a lame duck president the chance to make the decision. There’s plenty of precedent for denial.
“Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.
It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.
Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees.
President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!”
———————————–
““The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,” Grassley said.
“Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”
His comments follow those of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who said the next president should choose Scalia’s successor.”
And if you’d like to go really deep into the matter, I gotcha covered there too. You’ll want to keep this one handy for your liberal friends. 🙂 I’m guessing they won’t care for it much though. . 🙂
From The Congressional Research Office in a report to Congress in 2010.
“From 1789 through August 2010, Presidents submitted 160 nominations to Supreme Court
positions. Of these, 36 were not confirmed by the Senate. The 36 nominations represent 31
individuals whose names were sent forward to the Senate by Presidents (some individuals were nominated more than once). Of the 31 individuals who were not confirmed the first time they were nominated, however, six were later nominated again and confirmed. The Supreme Court nominations discussed here were not confirmed for a variety of reasons, including Senate opposition to the nominating President, nominee’s views, or incumbent Court; senatorial courtesy; perceived political unreliability of the nominee; perceived lack of ability; interest group opposition; and fear of altering the balance of the Court. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has played an important role in the confirmation process, particularly since 1868.
All but the most recent of these nominations have been the subject of extensive legal, historical, and political science writing, a selected list of which is included in this report.”
Opposition to the nominating President played a role in at least 16 of the 36 nominations that
were not confirmed. Many of the 16 were put forward by a President in the last year of his
presidency—seven occurred after a successor President had been elected, but before the transfer of power to the new administration. Each of these “lame duck” nominations transpired under 19th century Presidents when the post-election period lasted from early November until early March. Four one-term Presidents made nominations of this kind. President John Quincy Adams nominated John J. Crittenden in December 1828, after losing the election to Andrew Jackson.17 President Tyler’s third nomination of Walworth, second nomination of King, and only nomination of Read all came after Tyler had lost to James Polk.18 President Millard Fillmore nominated George E. Badger and William C. Micou after Franklin Pierce had been elected to replace him.19 Finally, President James Buchanan forwarded the name of Jeremiah S. Black to the Senate less than a month before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration.20 Other nominations where opposition to the President was a major factor include the remaining unsuccessful Tyler nominations, Fillmore’s nomination of Edward A. Bradford, and Andrew Johnson’s nomination of Henry Stanbery.21 President Lyndon B. Johnson’s two unsuccessful nominations (Fortas and Thornberry) occurred during the last seven months of his presidency, when, having announced he was not seeking re-election, he was considered by some to be a lame duck even before the election of his successor. Nineteen Senators issued a statement indicating that, on this basis, they would oppose any nomination by President Johnson.22 The committee report accompanying the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice, however, suggests that the opposition to Justice Fortas was based, to a considerable extent, on concern about money received by Fortas for delivering university lectures while an Associate Justice, Fortas’s close relationship and advisory role with President Johnson while an Associate Justice, and his judicial philosophy.23
“In response to attacks leveled against him by Sen. Ted Cruz , Rubio made a demonstrably and provably false declaration about his position on President Obama’s executive amnesty. Rubio even accused Cruz of “telling lies” about his position on executive amnesty– even though nationally-televised video footage of Marco Rubio confirms Cruz’s allegation, and reveals that Rubio lied in front of a nation-wide viewing audience during tonight’s debate.
Cruz said: “Marco right now supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally. I oppose citizenship… Marco has a long record when it comes to amnesty. In the state of Florida, as Speaker of the House, he supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. In addition to that, Marco went on Univision in Spanish and said he would not rescind President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty on his first day in office. I have promised to rescind every single illegal executive action, including that one.”
Cruz was referring specifically to President Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty for illegal immigrants who allegedly came to the country as minors. The unconstitutional amnesty known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals– or DACA– remains fully operational to this day. DACA not only gives illegal immigrants immunity from deportation, but also grants them work permits and access to federal benefits.
Indeed, video footage of Sen. Rubio confirms Cruz’s assertion. In an April Spanish-language interview, Rubio told Univision’s Jorge Ramos: “I wouldn’t undo it [DACA] immediately.” Rubio elaborated in English, telling Ramos: “I don’t think we can immediately revoke that [DACA]… I’m not calling for it to be revoked tomorrow, or this week, or right away.”
Yet Rubio– seemingly comfortable in the knowledge that the debate moderators would not be presenting any actual information on Rubio’s immigration record– simply denied Cruz’s charge, despite the existence of a readily available transcript which confirms Cruz’s claim. Rubio argued that Cruz didn’t know what he was talking about because– unlike Rubio– Cruz is not fluent in Spanish.
“First of all, I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish,” Rubio said in response to Cruz’s accusation.”
“Rubio then accused Cruz of fabricating the entire account: “Look, this is a disturbing pattern now, because for a number of weeks now, Ted Cruz has just been telling lies. He lied about Ben Carson in Iowa. He lies about Planned Parenthood. He lies about marriage. He’s lying about all sorts of things. And now he makes things up.”
However, video footage confirms Cruz’s accusation– and suggests that it is Rubio who is “telling lies” about his record.”
Rubio clearly blew it back in the day … I still support him now. I like his approach of (1) first securing the border, then (2) begin the discussion on comprehensive immigration policy.
As I’ve said before, this is an issue that I am probably more, ahem, “liberal,” on that some other here — but I think we can all agree that the border clearly needs to be secured — something the Dems appear unwilling to EVEN discuss at this point. 😦
“Rubio clearly blew it back in the day … I still support him now. I like his approach of (1) first securing the border, then (2) begin the discussion on comprehensive immigration policy.”
Sadly Donna, border security has never been #1 on his immigration list. That’s what he’s saying now, because he feels like he has to.
From the Breitbart link I posted above……
—————————————–
“This is not the first time Rubio has been caught in linguistic amnesty games before. As Phyllis Schlafly has pointed out, in 2013 Rubio told Rush Limbaugh that, under the Gang of Eight bill, border enforcement would precede amnesty. However, “Rubio had a different message in Spanish media. As Byron York reported: ‘Let’s be clear,’ Rubio said. ‘Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.’”
In April of 2015, following the Senator’s Univision interview, Rubio’s campaign suggested that a President Rubio’s DREAMer amnesty would precede border security. As Breitbart News previously reported: “The chief spokesman for the presidential campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in an on-record interview with Breitbart News that the senator, if elected president, would not require a secured border before he gives legislative and permanent amnesty to recipients of President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program… ”
—————————————
He only recently changed what he said all along. Legalization first, border security later is what he said as recently as 6 months ago, but now that he’s been zinged with his own words, he’s flip-flopped to saying what he thinks R voters want to hear. If you believe he’d keep the second half of his “deal” I think you’d be mistaken. I don’t believe him, and his word on it is meaningless.
Wandering Views 
From Drudge. “Evangelical Christians? As opposed to some other kind of Christian?
I suppose that defines people who are serious about their faith? Anyhow, according to the article many of them don’t like the designation.
I don’t think I do either. .
“Inside the Sunshine Coin Laundry near the Piggly Wiggly supermarket, Lagretta Ellington removed her family’s clothes from one of the large dryers and began to neatly fold them on a nearby table.
The air was moist and smelled of detergent. The floor was concrete. Her views of the presidential race were anything but. She was unsettled, and distrustful. The candidates just seemed like entertainers.
“I’m going to pray on it,” the 48-year-old Ellington said. “Hopefully, God will lead me in the right direction.”
In the South, now the pivotal battlefield of the 2016 presidential campaign, faith and politics walk the aisle together. And while Christians have always dominated American politics – Bernie Sanders this week became the first non-Christian ever to win a presidential primary in U.S. history – conservative Christians feel under siege.
Marriage is being redefined, and they’re being forced to go along. A new health care law mandates free contraception, even if it violates their core beliefs. Even the greeting “Merry Christmas” feels under assault.
Their anxiety and anger help explain the rise of Republican outsider candidates such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas (“Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander in chief”) and even billionaire Donald Trump (“If I’m president, you’re going to see ‘Merry Christmas’ in department stores, believe me”), perhaps the unlikeliest of vessels for such support.
Do we not have any moral compass anymore? ‘
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article60064956.html#storylink=cpy
LikeLike
Oh look, Beyonce’s “art” is having the effect she hoped for……..
And I’ll note it was a gun owner that saved the cop.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/20160210_Police__Gun_owner_saved_cop_from_attack_by_kids.html#disqus_thread
“POLICE ARE crediting a vigilant gun owner with saving the life of an Upper Darby cop Friday after he saw the officer being attacked and surrounded by a large group of teens.
“There were 40 kids. If it wasn’t for the good Samaritan stepping forward, he’d have been dead meat,” Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said. “There’s no doubt they would have attacked him.”
About 3 p.m. every weekday, from six to eight township police officers patrol the area near Upper Darby High School as nearly 4,000 kids pour out of the building on Lansdowne Avenue near School Lane.”
“That afternoon alone, police responded to three fights in three locations near the school. When the dust settled, eight teens, ages 13 to 17, were charged with crimes, and two officers were injured so severely that it’s unclear when they’ll be able to return to work, Chitwood said.”
“An officer who broke up a fight between two teen boys that had attracted a large crowd at that location was holding one of the combatants at bay when the teen’s opponent attacked the officer, Chitwood said.
“As he breaks up the fight, he takes one kid and then the other jumps [on] him. Now he’s fighting two of them and he’s calling for an assist officer at the same time,” Chitwood said. “There’s a crowd of 40 or 50 kids watching the fight, and they all move in towards the officer.”
That’s when the good Samaritan, who lives on the block, came out of his house with a gun in his hand and told the teens to get away from the cop, Chitwood said.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Odd that the writer of the McClatchy article thinks that Sanders not being a Christian is one of the things that makes Christians feel “under siege” ? I don’t think that’s an issue for most of us, frankly. I suspect many of our past candidates, despite their claims, are not actually Christian either. 😉
I notice that more than a few election stories have portrayed Christians and fearful and angry. 😦 That shouldn’t be true of us — and I don’t think it actually is as true as non-Christians seem to think it is (though there is overall voter ‘anger’ on both sides this year).
But it’s always weird to be part of a group that’s broad-brush stereotyped so often.
A Republican friend and I last night were discussing moving to Canada should things go bad (and Trump or Hill-Bern get elected) … 🙂 Of course, Canada’s even more lost in the wilderness than we are. Sigh.
Tonight’s another GOP debate.
LikeLike
I think most of us have accepted the fact that we now live in a post-Christian culture here in the U.S.
The question becomes how we proceed from here as a (minority) people of faith, or as the “remnant” as michelle reminded us yesterday.
LikeLike
donna j: You can come join us here in the Czech Republic!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Some of our church youth go there, btw, on missions under our denomination. And a friend in a sister church is from there originally.
I remember seeing a slide show presentation by our permanent missionaries there some years ago and was struck by how it is a nation that is (or has been), for the most part, quite solidly atheist. Nice to see and know that the light is shining and that the “wind blows where it will.”
LikeLike
Things seem to be breaking toward Trump. He is the closest thing I have ever seen to Hitler. The combination of being a megalomaniac and an effective demagogue is definitely a problem. I don’t think he will kill 6 million people in gas chambers, but I could definitely see him starting World War III or turning the US into a bankrupt pariah state,
I think Christians in the U.S. should give up on retirement. Instead of saving for retirement, I think we need to save to help our children leave this cursed place and get a fresh start.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dear Ricky,
Where would they go? How long will it last if America falls? If Canada or Australia, New Zealand or England are all Socialist/Parliamentary governments, are already gone then where else can we go?
Didn’t Abe L. say something about the US being the last, best hope? Stop saying you and yours are going to move to someplace else. There is no place to move. It will be a fight there too.
Fight the good fight here. Stay!!
Bob Buckles
LikeLiked by 3 people
Abe invaded and ruined my home.
We are afflicted with a combination of problems that are unique:
1. We spend 18% of GDP on semi- socialist healthcare – this makes our businesses completely uncompetitive.
2. Our cities are uninhabitable because of a criminal underclass.
3. A huge and growing share of our population is content to live off a shrinking group of taxpayers.
4. Our culture is a combination of Weimar Germany and Sodom.
5. Our higher education system is an overpriced indoctrination enterprise.
6. Millions of new fakers are claiming “disability” and living off the government each year.
7. Public education is an expensive failure.
8. The Social Security Ponzi scheme will eventually collapse.
9. Increasing numbers of our babies are illegitimate, and are being horribly “raised”.
10. Churches Christian schools and Christian businessmen are under constant attack from perverts and atheists.
Other countries have some of these problems, but we have all of these along with a population that is increasingly lazy, ignorant and immoral.
Should Lot have stayed in Sodom until the bitter end?
Better options may include:
Chile
Singapore
Hong Kong
South Korea
The Cook Islands
Ireland
Mauritius
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky’ comment re Trump/Hitler, reminded me.
Hitler said, “I will make Germany great again.”
I knew I heard that somewhere before.
I’m staying here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think I mentioned we looked into New ZEaland when we visited there in 2002. Beautiful place, pretty empty–it reminded me of a cross between Alaska and the north shore of O’ahu.
Totally secular, we were camping through both islands at Christmas time and saw very little decorations and none with Jesus involved. Churches were empty the times we went.
If you were under 40 years old and had private means or a job, you could emigrate. We were 46 and needed to bring at least $1M to invest in a business or no go.
So we went home. I’d love to visit again, though. It’s gorgeous, right, Jo?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Immigrants need a nest egg. That is why we should save to help our children relocate.
LikeLike
I went to three different churches in New Zealand and was very impressed. The Lord is at work there. One of them I heard a sermon quietly spoken that was absolute truth and folks had come out and filled the place the Sunday evening before Christmas.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Congress needs to prohibit the appointment of a radical to replace Scalia, even it it means an eight person court this session.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Ricky, you don’t want to go to Singapore. It is illegal to own a gun or ammunition there, with very severe penalties for possession and use of firearms, up to and including the death penalty. South Korea is a hedonist paradise, full of plastic surgery and pop culture – the content of their entertainment makes Hollywood look prudish. The Chinese Communists are slowly but surely crushing religious and political freedom in Hong Kong. Any place you choose will have its own set of problems. The old saying that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence is true.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with Ted Cruz. Senate should not approve anj Obama nominee.
I wonder if any Muslims qualify for appointment?
LikeLiked by 1 person
This will be another epic battle in Washington for sure
LikeLike
Just what we needed. Heads exploding yet ??
LikeLike
Check out the ‘Royal battle’ post at http://www.powerlineblog.com where they weigh in on options (they’re attorneys over there — can’t copy and paste url on my phone, unfortunately)
LikeLike
Republicans control the Senate, so they should be able to block anyone Obama attempts to appoint. Let the next President decide the nominee.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-found-dead-at-texas-ranch/ar-BBpt1JE?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=U142DHP
LikeLike
Roscuro, Thanks for the warning. If I pick Singapore, the six-shooters will stay behind in Texas.
LikeLike
I loved Scalia. Reagan loved Scalia. Since Jesse Helms retired, Scalia has been my favorite person in our government.
LikeLike
Tonights debate was a disaster for civility. Trump gave new meaning to the term bully pulpit. No one could shut him up. CBS did a terrible job controlling the audience and the candidates.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s what they predicted for this one. No holds barred.
LikeLike
A theory on Obama’s Supreme Court nominee:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/what-kind-of-supreme-court-nominee-will-obama-select.php
___________________________________________
I think that President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Scalia will be dead on arrival at the Senate, regardless of whom Obama selects. I suspect that Obama will reach the same conclusion.
If so, Obama will select the person whose rejection will provide Democrats with the most political ammunition.
Most likely, this means Obama will select an African-American female. That way, when the Senate refuses even to bring the nomination to a vote, the Democratic presidential nominee and Democrats running for Congress can rally African-American voters while also complaining that the GOP is waging war on women.
Political calculation also militates in favor of nominating someone whose leftism isn’t obvious. That way, Republicans won’t easily be able to answer charges of racism and sexism by pointing out that the nominee is “outside the mainstream.” …
___________________________________________
LikeLike
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: If the previous Republican debates have been World War I or II this is is thermonuclear. I have is not seen as many personal attacks or high temperature attacks as we saw in this debate.
__________________________________
I listened to the debate from my phone while driving on the Hollywood/Harbor Freeways, trying to get home amid bumper-to-bumper traffic. Oy.
LikeLike
Cute!
LikeLiked by 3 people
It appears that Trump has put together a winning coalition. He started with the ignorant and mentally feeble who are susceptible to demagoguery. To those he has added amoral, secular Republicans who are hostile to Christianity. He could not have assembled such a coalition in Chile.
LikeLike
No one I’d rather read, nice!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was disappointed — but sadly not surprised — by some of the rude snark about Scalia I saw pop up so quickly yesterday on FB/social media. 😦 😦 😦
On the debate: I was a little stunned by Trump’s blatant claim that (basically) Bush should have/could have prevented (and maybe knew about?) 9/11. A bridge too far, I think, at least for Republicans.
Kudos to Rubio who later gave an appropriate and spirited defense of the Bush handling of 9/11 and its immediate aftermath.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More on last night’s debate (I also thought at one point – the Democrats must be loving this):
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/after-last-night-12.php
________________________________________
The Republican presidential candidates’ debate in South Carolina last night must have warmed the hearts of Democrats everywhere. …
… Last night Donald Trump achieved maximum obnoxiousness in his impersonation of Michael Moore. He seemed to be acting as an agent provocateur. His assertion as the leading Republican presidential candidate that President Bush lied us into war with Iraq is simply mind-boggling. He may have spoken on this matter with some forethought, but he appeared to be deranged. At this point he not only damages our public discourse, he damages the Republican Party.
I have thought this has become a two-man race between Trump and Cruz at this point. Trump, however, must view Jeb Bush as a threat in South Carolina and perhaps elsewhere. I doubt it, but maybe so. If so, I don’t think he helped himself in South Carolina last night. …
… The continuing division of the non-Trump vote among several candidates works to Trump’s advantage. Who among this crew has a reasonable prospect of taking it to Hillary Clinton? I have my doubts about all of them, but after last night I can say with certainty that it’s not Trump and that Trump is compounding the difficulty of the task. …
__________________________________________
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow, for some of the crazier possibilities from steve hayward:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/gaming-the-scalia-seat.php
LikeLike
And Politico suggests these are the folks who could be on Obama’s “short list” for a Scalia replacement:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/antonin-scalia-replacement-219271
LikeLike
Seen on Facebook, a photo of Obama “saying”, “Go ahead Republicans and delay the Supreme Court nomination until after the election so Hillary or Bernie can nominate me.”
Yikes.
LikeLike
the “wildest” of Hayward’s admittedly VERY unlikely (but kind of fun) imaginings (at the link I posted above at 1:03)
____________________________
… And here’s the wildest thought: Democrats have a big problem with their presidential field, with two essentially unelectable candidates. How about Obama resigns, and Joe Biden appoints Obama to the Supreme Court? And then President Biden in is ideal position to become the nominee for this cycle. It would solve two problems at once. I’m certain Obama doesn’t want to be on the Supreme Court—he wants to have a massive Clinton-style foundation to enable both his lifestyle and his desire to remain a potent political force—but he might like the political effect of Republicans blocking his confirmation to the Supreme Court, which might help whip up Democratic turnout in November. And as Obama is tired and bored with his job, he might like the opportunity to depart it early and let Joe do it.
____________________________
LikeLike
Chas from yesterday: “Congress needs to prohibit the appointment of a radical to replace Scalia, even it it means an eight person court this session.”
Obama will be a lot smarter than that.
I’m convinced he’ll nominate someone who will be hard to reasonably block, more of a moderate (but definitely not a conservative jurist) who is broadly respected. Someone who will make the GOP look entirely partisan and UNreasonable if they try to block him or her. 😉
LikeLike
Chas, Quick! You must trademark your campaign slogan: “Not a socialist; not a nut.” I fear Bloomberg will steal it when he enters the race against Sanders and Trump.
LikeLike
Retweeted Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT):
Politics aside, we should all die full of years, with 28 grandchildren, in our sleep after quail hunting. Antonin Scalia RIP.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Karen,
That nominee (Obama) would never make it out of committee.
And only a liberal who agrees with Obama’s agenda would want him deciding whether it’s legal or not when it comes before the court. And he couldn’t be trusted to recuse himself when appropriate either. Only a Kool-Aid drinker would think this is wise.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The hate fest is out of control on Twitter and comment sections everywhere. You can always count on the veil on the so-called compassionate, caring liberals to slip a little, and show their intolerance and hate for opposing views. It’s disgusting.
This is why they shouldn’t get to decide who replaces Scalia. They are unworthy of the honor. If they can show the voters they deserve it, then the voters can elect a Democrat. If not, they can vote Republican. Let the voters decide how the court will swing. That’s what makes the most sense.
LikeLike
Dissenting opinion: If the Republicans nominate the rude buffoon, there is an excellent chance Hillary or Sanders wins the election and the Democrats take back the Senate. In such a case, Obama could be confirmed. To reject him would be “racist”. Furthermore, if he was rejected, the new President would just nominate somebody equally bad or worse. Yes, they are out there – in Boston and San Francisco and Detroit.
LikeLike
And for your reading pleasure, why it’s standard practice to deny a lame duck president the chance to make the decision. There’s plenty of precedent for denial.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
“Historically, many Supreme Court nominations made in a President’s final year in office are rejected by the Senate. That started with John Quincy Adams and last occurred to Lyndon B. Johnson.
It is critically important that the Senate hold pro forma sessions, since President Barack Obama would be able to make a recess appointment to the Supreme Court if the Senate goes out of session. Currently, there is a five-day recess this week and a two-week recess scheduled for April. There have been twelve such recess appointments to the high court. A recess appointment would last until the end of the Senate’s next session.
Historically, most presidents select a nominee within a week of a Supreme Court vacancy. However, there have been several lengthy vacancies when the Senate refused to play ball with controversial presidents or controversial nominees.
President John Tyler had a particularly difficult time filling vacancies. Smith Thompson died in office December 18, 1843. His replacement, Samuel Nelson, was in office starting February 14, 1845. That’s a vacancy of 424 days. Henry Baldwin died in office April 21, 1844. His replacement, Robert Cooper, was in office starting August 4, 1846. This vacancy lasted 835 days because Tyler could not get the Senate to work with him. During Tyler’s presidency, the Senate rejected nine separate Supreme Court nominations!”
———————————–
http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/269398-senate-judiciary-chair-wait-until-election-is-over-to-fill-scalias
““The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year,” Grassley said.
“Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this president, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”
His comments follow those of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who said the next president should choose Scalia’s successor.”
LikeLike
And if you’d like to go really deep into the matter, I gotcha covered there too. You’ll want to keep this one handy for your liberal friends. 🙂 I’m guessing they won’t care for it much though. . 🙂
From The Congressional Research Office in a report to Congress in 2010.
Click to access RL31171.pdf
“From 1789 through August 2010, Presidents submitted 160 nominations to Supreme Court
positions. Of these, 36 were not confirmed by the Senate. The 36 nominations represent 31
individuals whose names were sent forward to the Senate by Presidents (some individuals were nominated more than once). Of the 31 individuals who were not confirmed the first time they were nominated, however, six were later nominated again and confirmed. The Supreme Court nominations discussed here were not confirmed for a variety of reasons, including Senate opposition to the nominating President, nominee’s views, or incumbent Court; senatorial courtesy; perceived political unreliability of the nominee; perceived lack of ability; interest group opposition; and fear of altering the balance of the Court. The Senate Committee on the Judiciary has played an important role in the confirmation process, particularly since 1868.
All but the most recent of these nominations have been the subject of extensive legal, historical, and political science writing, a selected list of which is included in this report.”
LikeLike
Oh looky here…… 🙂
See what ya’ find when you look….. 🙂
From the CRO pdf
“Opposition to the President
Opposition to the nominating President played a role in at least 16 of the 36 nominations that
were not confirmed. Many of the 16 were put forward by a President in the last year of his
presidency—seven occurred after a successor President had been elected, but before the transfer of power to the new administration. Each of these “lame duck” nominations transpired under 19th century Presidents when the post-election period lasted from early November until early March. Four one-term Presidents made nominations of this kind. President John Quincy Adams nominated John J. Crittenden in December 1828, after losing the election to Andrew Jackson.17 President Tyler’s third nomination of Walworth, second nomination of King, and only nomination of Read all came after Tyler had lost to James Polk.18 President Millard Fillmore nominated George E. Badger and William C. Micou after Franklin Pierce had been elected to replace him.19 Finally, President James Buchanan forwarded the name of Jeremiah S. Black to the Senate less than a month before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration.20 Other nominations where opposition to the President was a major factor include the remaining unsuccessful Tyler nominations, Fillmore’s nomination of Edward A. Bradford, and Andrew Johnson’s nomination of Henry Stanbery.21 President Lyndon B. Johnson’s two unsuccessful nominations (Fortas and Thornberry) occurred during the last seven months of his presidency, when, having announced he was not seeking re-election, he was considered by some to be a lame duck even before the election of his successor. Nineteen Senators issued a statement indicating that, on this basis, they would oppose any nomination by President Johnson.22 The committee report accompanying the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice, however, suggests that the opposition to Justice Fortas was based, to a considerable extent, on concern about money received by Fortas for delivering university lectures while an Associate Justice, Fortas’s close relationship and advisory role with President Johnson while an Associate Justice, and his judicial philosophy.23
LikeLike
A Facebook friend mentioned that, during the debate last night, Rubio & Cruz were arguing about “who can speak Spanish.” What was that all about?
LikeLike
Karen,
The short version.
Cruz accused Rubio (correctly) of being pro-amnesty and said that Rubio said so in a speech to Univision’s Spanish viewers.
Rubio said it was untrue and accused Cruz of not speaking Spanish, so he said Cruz wouldn’t know if he did.
Bad move for Rubio, the transcript proves Cruz was correct, Rubio did say it.
So yeah, stupid moves all the way around for Rubio, who lied to the debate audience on the matter.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/14/interview-transcript-proves-rubio-promised-hispanics-en-espanol-hed-keep-executive-amnesty-place/
“In response to attacks leveled against him by Sen. Ted Cruz , Rubio made a demonstrably and provably false declaration about his position on President Obama’s executive amnesty. Rubio even accused Cruz of “telling lies” about his position on executive amnesty– even though nationally-televised video footage of Marco Rubio confirms Cruz’s allegation, and reveals that Rubio lied in front of a nation-wide viewing audience during tonight’s debate.
Cruz said: “Marco right now supports citizenship for 12 million people here illegally. I oppose citizenship… Marco has a long record when it comes to amnesty. In the state of Florida, as Speaker of the House, he supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. In addition to that, Marco went on Univision in Spanish and said he would not rescind President Obama’s illegal executive amnesty on his first day in office. I have promised to rescind every single illegal executive action, including that one.”
Cruz was referring specifically to President Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty for illegal immigrants who allegedly came to the country as minors. The unconstitutional amnesty known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals– or DACA– remains fully operational to this day. DACA not only gives illegal immigrants immunity from deportation, but also grants them work permits and access to federal benefits.
Indeed, video footage of Sen. Rubio confirms Cruz’s assertion. In an April Spanish-language interview, Rubio told Univision’s Jorge Ramos: “I wouldn’t undo it [DACA] immediately.” Rubio elaborated in English, telling Ramos: “I don’t think we can immediately revoke that [DACA]… I’m not calling for it to be revoked tomorrow, or this week, or right away.”
Yet Rubio– seemingly comfortable in the knowledge that the debate moderators would not be presenting any actual information on Rubio’s immigration record– simply denied Cruz’s charge, despite the existence of a readily available transcript which confirms Cruz’s claim. Rubio argued that Cruz didn’t know what he was talking about because– unlike Rubio– Cruz is not fluent in Spanish.
“First of all, I don’t know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn’t speak Spanish,” Rubio said in response to Cruz’s accusation.”
“Rubio then accused Cruz of fabricating the entire account: “Look, this is a disturbing pattern now, because for a number of weeks now, Ted Cruz has just been telling lies. He lied about Ben Carson in Iowa. He lies about Planned Parenthood. He lies about marriage. He’s lying about all sorts of things. And now he makes things up.”
However, video footage confirms Cruz’s accusation– and suggests that it is Rubio who is “telling lies” about his record.”
LikeLike
That’s too bad. I used to lean more towards Rubio, but that’s been changing lately.
LikeLike
Rubio clearly blew it back in the day … I still support him now. I like his approach of (1) first securing the border, then (2) begin the discussion on comprehensive immigration policy.
As I’ve said before, this is an issue that I am probably more, ahem, “liberal,” on that some other here — but I think we can all agree that the border clearly needs to be secured — something the Dems appear unwilling to EVEN discuss at this point. 😦
LikeLike
Hopefully we can quickly get beyond attacking one another and move toward some kind of unity.
Otherwise, oh well.
Say goodbye to the USA
LikeLike
Donna,
“Rubio clearly blew it back in the day … I still support him now. I like his approach of (1) first securing the border, then (2) begin the discussion on comprehensive immigration policy.”
Sadly Donna, border security has never been #1 on his immigration list. That’s what he’s saying now, because he feels like he has to.
From the Breitbart link I posted above……
—————————————–
“This is not the first time Rubio has been caught in linguistic amnesty games before. As Phyllis Schlafly has pointed out, in 2013 Rubio told Rush Limbaugh that, under the Gang of Eight bill, border enforcement would precede amnesty. However, “Rubio had a different message in Spanish media. As Byron York reported: ‘Let’s be clear,’ Rubio said. ‘Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence.’”
In April of 2015, following the Senator’s Univision interview, Rubio’s campaign suggested that a President Rubio’s DREAMer amnesty would precede border security. As Breitbart News previously reported: “The chief spokesman for the presidential campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in an on-record interview with Breitbart News that the senator, if elected president, would not require a secured border before he gives legislative and permanent amnesty to recipients of President Barack Obama’s first executive amnesty, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program… ”
—————————————
He only recently changed what he said all along. Legalization first, border security later is what he said as recently as 6 months ago, but now that he’s been zinged with his own words, he’s flip-flopped to saying what he thinks R voters want to hear. If you believe he’d keep the second half of his “deal” I think you’d be mistaken. I don’t believe him, and his word on it is meaningless.
LikeLike