“Democrats warned that releasing the Nunes memo would damage national security. Some who looked at the memo after its release didn’t really see how that would be the case. But it turns out Democrats could have been describing their own memo. According to a report at Fox News, the Democratic rebuttal memo is loaded with information on sources and methods in an effort to put the White House in a bind.
The Democratic rebuttal to a highly publicized GOP memo alleging government surveillance abuse is filled with sensitive details, a source told Fox News – claiming this was done intentionally to pressure the White House to either block the memo’s release or significantly redact it…
The source who spoke to Fox News has read the Democrats’ rebuttal memo, and said it is filled with information on sources and methods taken from original documents.
While the source described this as a way to put the White House in a difficult spot, Schiff maintained publicly that he wants to make sure the White House “does not redact our memo for political purposes.” A Schiff aide referred Fox News back to those comments when asked about the claim that the memo intentionally contained sources and methods.”
———————–
“So it seems pretty clear that there is some sensitive information in the Schiff memo and that leaves Trump with three choices. First, he could release the memo as is, including all of the sensitive information. At that point, Democrats can whisper that he is harming national security and add that they warned all along that releasing the memo would harm national security. No one in the media will call them on this sleight-of-hand.
Second, Trump could refuse to release the memo at which point Democrats, led by Schiff, will make the rounds on every network complaining his memo is being suppressed, along with the truth.
Third, Trump could redact the memo and release it, at which point the Democrats will claim the redactions a) are partisan, and b) show we shouldn’t be talking about this in public. You can probably visualize Rep. Schiff appearing on MSNBC next week, holding up a redacted page of his own memo and claiming it’s part of a White House cover-up.
You have to hand it to Rep. Schiff. This is a clever partisan gambit. No matter what the White House does, Democrats can spin it to their advantage to a mostly fawning media.”
“Get ready for the backlash. Judge David Lampe in Kern County, located in California, ruled against a same-sex couple after they sued Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller because she did not want to bake them a wedding cake.
Key distinction? Miller has not yet baked the cake.
Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio married in December 2016 and decided to have a ceremony with friends and family in October 2017. They planned for a wedding cake and after they tasted a few bakeries, decided to try out cakes at Miller’s Tastries.
An employee showed them display cakes and took down an order before she booked an official cake testing date. When that day came, Miller apologized to the couple and offered to send their order to a competitor who would bake and sell them a cake.
In October 2017, the couple “filed an administrative complaint with the State, alleging that Defendants violated the Unruh Act by denying them full and equal services on the basis of sexual orientation.”
California issued the Unruh Act in 1959, named after its author Jesse Unruh, that outlaws discrimination based on “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.”
Benjamin Wittes and Jon Rauch wrote this article which argues that conservatives should vote for Democrats until the Republican Party rids itself of Trumpism.
@7:45 lol. The cat finally comes fully out of the bag. Establishment Republicans do indeed have more in common with Wall St Hillary Democrats than they do with the working people of the Evangelical base. The Republican coalition is officially broken.
1. Neither Rauch nor Wittes are Establishment Republicans. They are centrists.
2. As the article notes, Rauch and Wittes disagree on many things. They share a profound commitment to the rule of law.
3. Their opposition to current Republicans has nothing to do with economics or Trumpian economic ideas. Rather they are simply appalled by the way Republicans are supporting Trump’s efforts to subvert the rule of law.
4. I am not going to vote for any Democrats. However, I would hope that whatever is left of an “evangelical base” would support the rule of law.
If you read between the lines of Douthat’s response, I think he imagines an electoral failure of Trumpism in 2018 and 2020 leading to the nomination of the next Rubio or Scott Walker in 2024. He assumes Fox, Rush and Hannity would quietly jump off the bandwagon of Trumpism to become Rubio/Walker cheerleaders and most Trumpers would then back Rubio/Walker. It is a cynical view, but I can’t say it is wrong.
This is Exhibit A for how liberal slaves to the latest social issue fads frame their discussions. (A bit of a language warning)
It does your readers no service to suggest that Rippon's attack on Pence is a "bizarre battle" that Pence is waging.
Same for the piece itself. "The spat between the vice president and the figure skater began…" is entirely misleading. It's a one-sided spat! https://t.co/4adACGPcE1
“A new batch of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page revealed President Barack Obama wanted updates on the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, according a report released Wednesday.
On Sept. 2, 2016 — just weeks away from election day — Ms. Page texted Mr. Strzok, her lover, about preparing a report for then-FBI Director James B. Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”
That raises questions about Mr. Obama’s involvement in the Clinton investigation, the report said.
The message were released in a report by Sen. Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, who is chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, one of six congressional committees reviewing the Strzok-Page texts.
Newly released texts also raised questions about whether the FBI waited nearly a month to reopen the Clinton investigation after new emails from the former secretary of state were discovered on the laptop computer of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, whose wife was a top Clinton campaign aide.
On Sept. 28, 2016, Mr. Strzok told Ms. Page he was called into the office of then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to discuss “hundreds of thousands” of emails, including some possibly sent by Mrs. Clinton, that Mr. Weiner’s attorney turned over to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The emails were turned over as part of an unrelated investigation into Mr. Weiner sending explicit messages to an underage girl in North Carolina.”
RT @dmartosko: News about Obama wanting updates from Comey on the Clinton email probe is troubling given that he said months earlier that 'I do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. … I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation.'
“It is usually easier for an outsider to defend a person or a group that is attacked than for the person or group to defend itself.
In that vein, this Jew would like to defend Evangelicals and other Christians who support President Donald Trump. They are regularly attacked as religious hypocrites who give Christianity in general, and Evangelical Christianity in particular, a bad name.
The people writing such things are often Christians, including Evangelicals. Ross Douthat, a New York Times columnist, wrote: “Whether the subject is the debauched pagan in the White House, the mall-haunted candidacy of Roy Moore or the larger question of how to engage with secular culture, there is talk of an intergenerational crisis within evangelical churches, a widening disillusionment with a Trump-endorsing old guard, a feeling that a crackup must loom ahead.”
Jared Wilson wrote on the Gospel Coalition’s website: “From the same believers who raised us to believe that standing for the truth was more important than anything, that being persecuted for your integrity was better than compromise, that morality was not relative, that ethics are not situational. And now these same teachers are wanting us to believe that a little ‘R’ by a man’s name covers a multitude of sins.”
Robert P. Jones wrote in USA Today: “White Evangelicals . . . are, in many ways, a community grieving its losses. . . . Thinking about the white evangelical/Trump alliance as an end-of-life bargain is illuminating. It helps explain, for example, how white evangelical leaders could ignore so many problematic aspects of Trump’s character.”
Shortly before the election, Marvin Olasky and the editors wrote in World magazine: “Glorifying God by honoring His standards is worth more than political gain.”
——————–
“I could give dozens more examples of attacks on Evangelical Christians who support President Trump.
I believe these attacks are not biblical, moral, or wise. Religious Christians and Jews who support Trump understand that the character of a public leader is quite often less important than his policies. This is so obvious that only the naïve think otherwise. Character is no predictor of political leadership on behalf of moral causes. I wish it were. Then, in any political contest, we would simply have to determine who the better person is and vote accordingly.
Therefore, I would like to pose some questions to critics of Evangelicals who support Trump:
1. Former President Jimmy Carter has been married once (virtually all critics of Trump note that he is thrice married, as if that were ipso facto a character defect), and to the best of anyone’s knowledge, has been faithful to his wife all those years. If you are conservative, religious or secular, would you vote for Jimmy Carter over Donald Trump?
2. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton has a finer character than Donald Trump? For the record, I believe his character is superior to hers. And the choice in the 2016 was between Trump and Clinton. A Republican who voted for anyone else (or didn’t vote) voted for Clinton.
3. Whom should pro-choice voters support: a pro-life activist of fine character or a pro-choice activist of dubious character?
4. Whom should pro-Israel voters support: an anti-Israel activist of fine character or a pro-Israel activist of dubious character?
5. If they were to have cancer, would any of the Evangelicals’ critics choose an oncologist based on character? If not, why not?”
I want the best cancer doctor. Period. Full stop. The rest is irrelevant.
Same applies for my thinking on politics. I have 2 choices. I took what I felt was the “better” of the 2. The rest is irrelevant since these are my only choices.
And they were the only 2 with a chance of winning, so they were the only real choices.
That’s about all I agree with Prager on here.
And probably 2 as well. At least Trump hasn’t left a trail of dead bodies in his wake and rise to the top. That’s worth something still, right?
“Senate leaders announced Wednesday they have sealed agreement on a two-year budget pact that would shower both the Pentagon and domestic programs with almost $300 billion above existing limits, giving wins to both GOP defense hawks and Democrats seeking billions for infrastructure projects and combatting opioid abuse.
The agreement is likely to be added to a stopgap spending bill that passed the House on Tuesday, aimed at averting a government shutdown Thursday at midnight. Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the Senate agreement “a genuine breakthrough.”
However, it would not resolve the plight of immigrant “Dreamers” who face deportation after being brought to the U.S. illegally as children. As the Senate leaders were announcing their agreement, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California was holding the floor in the House, declaring she would oppose the measure unless her chamber’s GOP leaders promised a vote on legislation to protect the younger immigrants.”
“On Monday, I blogged about how Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked the FBI to declassify the criminal referral he and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sent to the DOJ over dossier author Christopher Steele.
The FBI approved a less-redacted version and Grassley released it on Tuesday, including some parts of the documents that detail why the two senators believe Steele misled the FBI. However, the portion about Steele’s second dossier that had information from an associate of the Clintons and member of the State Department remains the same.
In other parts, it supports claims that the FBI used Steele’s dossier to receive a surveillance warrant on carter Page.
The part about Steele’s second dossier caught eyes on Monday, but the FBI kept the redactions intact. Officials blacked out what the dossier alleges and which associate of failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and member of the State Department provided Steele with the information.”
————————
“Steele admitted that he provided off the record briefings to the media in late 2016. In another sworn filing, Steele said that he and Fusion GPS (the company that worked on the dossier) briefed reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, New Yorker, and CNN at the end of September 2016. Fusion also pushed Steele to have more meetings with these outlets in mid-October 2016.
Media reported these filings last year, but as Grassley points out, “the FBI did not subsequently disclose to the FISC this evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele had lied to the FBI.” The application for the warrant “still relied primarily on his credibility prior to the October media incident.”
This information appears to confirm the memo from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) since it alleges that the FBI used the dossier to obtain a warrant on Page.
I am SO LOST. So did the FBI really believe Steele had unreliable information? Were they that desperate to get dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump that it didn’t matter? Did Comey truly find the dossier as salacious?
I love having transparency, but it seems to bring up more questions than answers.”
“I want the best cancer doctor. Period. Full stop. The rest is irrelevant.”
I want the best doctor, too. But the analogy begs the question: are we, as Christians, Biblically permitted to ignore a political leader’s character? The Bible sure says a lot about leaders and their character, even to the point, in my opinion, of making it our duty to advocate ONLY for candidates of a certain character. I don’t see the Bible saying anything specific about the character of doctors, plumbers, storm door repairmen, etc., beyond general admonitions that apply to all people. Further, if we get that question wrong, which I humbly believe we have, then we risk God withholding certain blessings because of our disobedience and even lack of faith.
Solar Pancake, wouldn’t it be even holier to refuse the cancer doctor or plumber who wasn’t a Christian?
I had a conversation with someone to that effect just the other week. When I asked her why single out politicians, and would she hire an unbeleiver in another position, she said that if she had hiring authority, she would not. Is she more consistent, or is she just showing the basically untenable position of the concept?
“Further, if we get that question wrong, which I humbly believe we have, then we risk God withholding certain blessings because of our disobedience and even lack of faith.”
True. And there are numerous examples of Israel being forced to live with the consequences of wanting what they wanted, and God giving it to them.
There are also numerous examples of God taking deeply flawed people, prostitutes, adulterers, King David, even persecutors of God’s people, and using them for his purposes, and to benefit others. It works both ways.
Whether people, me included, like it or not, Trump seems to be one God chose, or allowed, for this time.
It was a slow news day, so my son and I spent lunch researching Texas gubernatorial candidates. Republican Governor Greg Abbott has $50 million in the bank. The leading Democrat has $50 thousand in the bank. One of the Democrats is off the ballot because her filing fee check bounced. The leading Democrat is a homosexual. One of the Republicans, Larry SECEDE Kilgore, (Yes, That is his real name.) favors the death penalty as a punishment for homosexuality, adultery and abortion. We are hoping for a debate that includes both Kilgore and that Democrat.
As his name suggests, Kilgore favors secession. My son was particularly interested in his position on welfare in which he discusses Jesus feeding the five thousand. He is also against prisons, believing that crimes should be punished by execution, forced restitution or some sort of “public shaming”. I assume he is talking about putting people in stocks on the courthouse square. Here is an article on Kilgore:
Cheryl, what do you mean “holier”? Like “holier-than-thou”? Aw, you got me! That’s what I wanna be! solarpancake’s desire in this world is to be holier than everyone!!!!
Jes kiddin. Anyhoo. What are your thoughts on what I actually posted?
Isn’t it weird when you post something, then someone tries to refute what you said by questioning your motive, but doesn’t speak to what you said at all? Isn’t that weird LOL???
Solar Pancake, no, in fact, I did not mean “holier than thou.” I was saying that if it is righteous to vote only for good solid Christians–if God will in fact judge us for doing otherwise–then will we get even more credit if we take it a step further?
I have addressed your thoughts on previous occasions, more than once actually, and didn’t see the need to do so again. So I was taking it another step: You have in the past used a single verse, written to rulers, “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry” to say that rulers are required to “kiss the Son,” ans thus that we are required to elect only rulers who do so.
But we can easily take it a step further. God has many commands that we break every day. Every unbeliever is constantly breaking at least the first four of the Ten Commandments. So if I cannot vote for a “ruler” who doesn’t follow a single command to rulers, why can I pay my own money to a plumber who disobeys most or all of the Ten Commandments?
When I asked someone else holding your position whether she would take it the next step and not hire any unbeliever for any position, she agreed that she would hire only Christians. Clearly that is an impossible, and even unbiblical, position–but it is at least consistent. So I asked you if you were willing to be that consistent, and if not, why not?
Oh but Cheryl, did you not question my motive? Or are you not saying, as you typed, that my position has something to do with getting “more credit”? Did I say something about credit? Where? (P.S., I’m sorry your friend said stuff. I don’t feel compelled to answer for her).
I’ve referred to a number of verses here in other threads stating my case. I also mentioned that God issues specific commands to rulers, but none to doctors and lawyers and such. Did you not follow what I was getting at? I could explain further, if you wish? Or…
We could make an attempt to address each other (all of us here) and our views with charity, and maybe get to understand where we’re coming from. That doesn’t sound too bad. What’s your pref?
“There are also numerous examples of God taking deeply flawed people, prostitutes, adulterers, King David, even persecutors of God’s people, and using them for his purposes, and to benefit others. It works both ways.”
How does that work? What does it justify? God uses prostitutes, so it follows we should support prostitutes? I never quite get this one.
Does context mean anything? God uses adulterers, therefore, we’re permitted to consider adulterers for the office of elders? Does this line of logic have *any* limits?
Wandering Views 
Huh. And yet they acted like they were so worried that Trump and Reps would do so…..
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/06/report-schiff-memo-filled-classified-information-hopes-trump-will-block-redact/
“Democrats warned that releasing the Nunes memo would damage national security. Some who looked at the memo after its release didn’t really see how that would be the case. But it turns out Democrats could have been describing their own memo. According to a report at Fox News, the Democratic rebuttal memo is loaded with information on sources and methods in an effort to put the White House in a bind.
The Democratic rebuttal to a highly publicized GOP memo alleging government surveillance abuse is filled with sensitive details, a source told Fox News – claiming this was done intentionally to pressure the White House to either block the memo’s release or significantly redact it…
The source who spoke to Fox News has read the Democrats’ rebuttal memo, and said it is filled with information on sources and methods taken from original documents.
While the source described this as a way to put the White House in a difficult spot, Schiff maintained publicly that he wants to make sure the White House “does not redact our memo for political purposes.” A Schiff aide referred Fox News back to those comments when asked about the claim that the memo intentionally contained sources and methods.”
———————–
“So it seems pretty clear that there is some sensitive information in the Schiff memo and that leaves Trump with three choices. First, he could release the memo as is, including all of the sensitive information. At that point, Democrats can whisper that he is harming national security and add that they warned all along that releasing the memo would harm national security. No one in the media will call them on this sleight-of-hand.
Second, Trump could refuse to release the memo at which point Democrats, led by Schiff, will make the rounds on every network complaining his memo is being suppressed, along with the truth.
Third, Trump could redact the memo and release it, at which point the Democrats will claim the redactions a) are partisan, and b) show we shouldn’t be talking about this in public. You can probably visualize Rep. Schiff appearing on MSNBC next week, holding up a redacted page of his own memo and claiming it’s part of a White House cover-up.
You have to hand it to Rep. Schiff. This is a clever partisan gambit. No matter what the White House does, Democrats can spin it to their advantage to a mostly fawning media.”
LikeLike
Some cakes are more equal than others?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/02/california-judge-rules-against-gay-couple-says-cake-in-question-is-not-yet-baked/#more-241367
“Get ready for the backlash. Judge David Lampe in Kern County, located in California, ruled against a same-sex couple after they sued Tastries Bakery owner Cathy Miller because she did not want to bake them a wedding cake.
Key distinction? Miller has not yet baked the cake.
Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio married in December 2016 and decided to have a ceremony with friends and family in October 2017. They planned for a wedding cake and after they tasted a few bakeries, decided to try out cakes at Miller’s Tastries.
An employee showed them display cakes and took down an order before she booked an official cake testing date. When that day came, Miller apologized to the couple and offered to send their order to a competitor who would bake and sell them a cake.
In October 2017, the couple “filed an administrative complaint with the State, alleging that Defendants violated the Unruh Act by denying them full and equal services on the basis of sexual orientation.”
California issued the Unruh Act in 1959, named after its author Jesse Unruh, that outlaws discrimination based on “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.”
————————————
LikeLiked by 1 person
Benjamin Wittes and Jon Rauch wrote this article which argues that conservatives should vote for Democrats until the Republican Party rids itself of Trumpism.
https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/960589753744752641
LikeLike
Douthat then responded to Wittes and Rauch, arguing that the Republicans had “contained” Trump up to this point.
LikeLike
Dreher critiques an article by Paul Berman about the true reason for our cultural collapse:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/
LikeLike
@7:45 lol. The cat finally comes fully out of the bag. Establishment Republicans do indeed have more in common with Wall St Hillary Democrats than they do with the working people of the Evangelical base. The Republican coalition is officially broken.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debra, A few thoughts:
1. Neither Rauch nor Wittes are Establishment Republicans. They are centrists.
2. As the article notes, Rauch and Wittes disagree on many things. They share a profound commitment to the rule of law.
3. Their opposition to current Republicans has nothing to do with economics or Trumpian economic ideas. Rather they are simply appalled by the way Republicans are supporting Trump’s efforts to subvert the rule of law.
4. I am not going to vote for any Democrats. However, I would hope that whatever is left of an “evangelical base” would support the rule of law.
LikeLike
If you read between the lines of Douthat’s response, I think he imagines an electoral failure of Trumpism in 2018 and 2020 leading to the nomination of the next Rubio or Scott Walker in 2024. He assumes Fox, Rush and Hannity would quietly jump off the bandwagon of Trumpism to become Rubio/Walker cheerleaders and most Trumpers would then back Rubio/Walker. It is a cynical view, but I can’t say it is wrong.
LikeLike
Promote the rule of law…
OK, I’m on board
…by advocating votes for…
Yes, I’m listening…
Democrats????
Ummm. OK.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is Exhibit A for how liberal slaves to the latest social issue fads frame their discussions. (A bit of a language warning)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ricky,
Nice to see you and some other Never-Trumpers finally coming out of the closet and confirming what we suspected.
You guys are traitors. 🙂
LikeLike
Of course he did. He’s been knee deep in it all.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/7/new-texts-between-fbis-peter-strzok-lisa-page-show/
“A new batch of text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page revealed President Barack Obama wanted updates on the bureau’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, according a report released Wednesday.
On Sept. 2, 2016 — just weeks away from election day — Ms. Page texted Mr. Strzok, her lover, about preparing a report for then-FBI Director James B. Comey because “potus wants to know everything we’re doing.”
That raises questions about Mr. Obama’s involvement in the Clinton investigation, the report said.
The message were released in a report by Sen. Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, who is chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, one of six congressional committees reviewing the Strzok-Page texts.
Newly released texts also raised questions about whether the FBI waited nearly a month to reopen the Clinton investigation after new emails from the former secretary of state were discovered on the laptop computer of former Rep. Anthony Weiner, New York Democrat, whose wife was a top Clinton campaign aide.
On Sept. 28, 2016, Mr. Strzok told Ms. Page he was called into the office of then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe to discuss “hundreds of thousands” of emails, including some possibly sent by Mrs. Clinton, that Mr. Weiner’s attorney turned over to the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. The emails were turned over as part of an unrelated investigation into Mr. Weiner sending explicit messages to an underage girl in North Carolina.”
LikeLike
You know he’s lying because his lips are moving.
———————
https://twitter.com/Mountainaires/status/960209218639839232
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting….
A Defense of Evangelicals Who Support Trump
And some questions for their critics.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456140/evangelicals-trump-defense-of-support
“It is usually easier for an outsider to defend a person or a group that is attacked than for the person or group to defend itself.
In that vein, this Jew would like to defend Evangelicals and other Christians who support President Donald Trump. They are regularly attacked as religious hypocrites who give Christianity in general, and Evangelical Christianity in particular, a bad name.
The people writing such things are often Christians, including Evangelicals. Ross Douthat, a New York Times columnist, wrote: “Whether the subject is the debauched pagan in the White House, the mall-haunted candidacy of Roy Moore or the larger question of how to engage with secular culture, there is talk of an intergenerational crisis within evangelical churches, a widening disillusionment with a Trump-endorsing old guard, a feeling that a crackup must loom ahead.”
Jared Wilson wrote on the Gospel Coalition’s website: “From the same believers who raised us to believe that standing for the truth was more important than anything, that being persecuted for your integrity was better than compromise, that morality was not relative, that ethics are not situational. And now these same teachers are wanting us to believe that a little ‘R’ by a man’s name covers a multitude of sins.”
Robert P. Jones wrote in USA Today: “White Evangelicals . . . are, in many ways, a community grieving its losses. . . . Thinking about the white evangelical/Trump alliance as an end-of-life bargain is illuminating. It helps explain, for example, how white evangelical leaders could ignore so many problematic aspects of Trump’s character.”
Shortly before the election, Marvin Olasky and the editors wrote in World magazine: “Glorifying God by honoring His standards is worth more than political gain.”
——————–
“I could give dozens more examples of attacks on Evangelical Christians who support President Trump.
I believe these attacks are not biblical, moral, or wise. Religious Christians and Jews who support Trump understand that the character of a public leader is quite often less important than his policies. This is so obvious that only the naïve think otherwise. Character is no predictor of political leadership on behalf of moral causes. I wish it were. Then, in any political contest, we would simply have to determine who the better person is and vote accordingly.
Therefore, I would like to pose some questions to critics of Evangelicals who support Trump:
1. Former President Jimmy Carter has been married once (virtually all critics of Trump note that he is thrice married, as if that were ipso facto a character defect), and to the best of anyone’s knowledge, has been faithful to his wife all those years. If you are conservative, religious or secular, would you vote for Jimmy Carter over Donald Trump?
2. Do you believe that Hillary Clinton has a finer character than Donald Trump? For the record, I believe his character is superior to hers. And the choice in the 2016 was between Trump and Clinton. A Republican who voted for anyone else (or didn’t vote) voted for Clinton.
3. Whom should pro-choice voters support: a pro-life activist of fine character or a pro-choice activist of dubious character?
4. Whom should pro-Israel voters support: an anti-Israel activist of fine character or a pro-Israel activist of dubious character?
5. If they were to have cancer, would any of the Evangelicals’ critics choose an oncologist based on character? If not, why not?”
LikeLike
AJ, I don’t know if I agree with a single part of Prager’s analysis there. What do you believe to be a couple of his strongest arguments?
LikeLike
5, Seems to be about it.
I want the best cancer doctor. Period. Full stop. The rest is irrelevant.
Same applies for my thinking on politics. I have 2 choices. I took what I felt was the “better” of the 2. The rest is irrelevant since these are my only choices.
And they were the only 2 with a chance of winning, so they were the only real choices.
That’s about all I agree with Prager on here.
And probably 2 as well. At least Trump hasn’t left a trail of dead bodies in his wake and rise to the top. That’s worth something still, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
How conservative of them…..
Everybody wins!
Except the deficit and taxpayers……
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/big-budget-deal-in-senate-hailed-as-genuine-breakthrough/ar-BBINrQX?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=mailsignout
“Senate leaders announced Wednesday they have sealed agreement on a two-year budget pact that would shower both the Pentagon and domestic programs with almost $300 billion above existing limits, giving wins to both GOP defense hawks and Democrats seeking billions for infrastructure projects and combatting opioid abuse.
The agreement is likely to be added to a stopgap spending bill that passed the House on Tuesday, aimed at averting a government shutdown Thursday at midnight. Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York called the Senate agreement “a genuine breakthrough.”
However, it would not resolve the plight of immigrant “Dreamers” who face deportation after being brought to the U.S. illegally as children. As the Senate leaders were announcing their agreement, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California was holding the floor in the House, declaring she would oppose the measure unless her chamber’s GOP leaders promised a vote on legislation to protect the younger immigrants.”
LikeLike
Confirmation, despite denials to the contrary, and even more questions.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/02/grassley-document-appears-to-support-claims-the-fbi-used-dossier-to-receive-surveillance-warrant/#more-241461
“On Monday, I blogged about how Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked the FBI to declassify the criminal referral he and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sent to the DOJ over dossier author Christopher Steele.
The FBI approved a less-redacted version and Grassley released it on Tuesday, including some parts of the documents that detail why the two senators believe Steele misled the FBI. However, the portion about Steele’s second dossier that had information from an associate of the Clintons and member of the State Department remains the same.
In other parts, it supports claims that the FBI used Steele’s dossier to receive a surveillance warrant on carter Page.
The part about Steele’s second dossier caught eyes on Monday, but the FBI kept the redactions intact. Officials blacked out what the dossier alleges and which associate of failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and member of the State Department provided Steele with the information.”
————————
“Steele admitted that he provided off the record briefings to the media in late 2016. In another sworn filing, Steele said that he and Fusion GPS (the company that worked on the dossier) briefed reporters from the New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, New Yorker, and CNN at the end of September 2016. Fusion also pushed Steele to have more meetings with these outlets in mid-October 2016.
Media reported these filings last year, but as Grassley points out, “the FBI did not subsequently disclose to the FISC this evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele had lied to the FBI.” The application for the warrant “still relied primarily on his credibility prior to the October media incident.”
This information appears to confirm the memo from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA) since it alleges that the FBI used the dossier to obtain a warrant on Page.
I am SO LOST. So did the FBI really believe Steele had unreliable information? Were they that desperate to get dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump that it didn’t matter? Did Comey truly find the dossier as salacious?
I love having transparency, but it seems to bring up more questions than answers.”
LikeLike
Hey AJ,
“I want the best cancer doctor. Period. Full stop. The rest is irrelevant.”
I want the best doctor, too. But the analogy begs the question: are we, as Christians, Biblically permitted to ignore a political leader’s character? The Bible sure says a lot about leaders and their character, even to the point, in my opinion, of making it our duty to advocate ONLY for candidates of a certain character. I don’t see the Bible saying anything specific about the character of doctors, plumbers, storm door repairmen, etc., beyond general admonitions that apply to all people. Further, if we get that question wrong, which I humbly believe we have, then we risk God withholding certain blessings because of our disobedience and even lack of faith.
LikeLike
Solar Pancake, wouldn’t it be even holier to refuse the cancer doctor or plumber who wasn’t a Christian?
I had a conversation with someone to that effect just the other week. When I asked her why single out politicians, and would she hire an unbeleiver in another position, she said that if she had hiring authority, she would not. Is she more consistent, or is she just showing the basically untenable position of the concept?
LikeLike
“Further, if we get that question wrong, which I humbly believe we have, then we risk God withholding certain blessings because of our disobedience and even lack of faith.”
True. And there are numerous examples of Israel being forced to live with the consequences of wanting what they wanted, and God giving it to them.
There are also numerous examples of God taking deeply flawed people, prostitutes, adulterers, King David, even persecutors of God’s people, and using them for his purposes, and to benefit others. It works both ways.
Whether people, me included, like it or not, Trump seems to be one God chose, or allowed, for this time.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Cheryl makes an excellent point. Where is the line drawn?
LikeLike
It was a slow news day, so my son and I spent lunch researching Texas gubernatorial candidates. Republican Governor Greg Abbott has $50 million in the bank. The leading Democrat has $50 thousand in the bank. One of the Democrats is off the ballot because her filing fee check bounced. The leading Democrat is a homosexual. One of the Republicans, Larry SECEDE Kilgore, (Yes, That is his real name.) favors the death penalty as a punishment for homosexuality, adultery and abortion. We are hoping for a debate that includes both Kilgore and that Democrat.
As his name suggests, Kilgore favors secession. My son was particularly interested in his position on welfare in which he discusses Jesus feeding the five thousand. He is also against prisons, believing that crimes should be punished by execution, forced restitution or some sort of “public shaming”. I assume he is talking about putting people in stocks on the courthouse square. Here is an article on Kilgore:
http://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/bud-kennedy/article157279549.html
LikeLike
The campaign website:
http://secedekilgore.com
LikeLike
Cheryl, what do you mean “holier”? Like “holier-than-thou”? Aw, you got me! That’s what I wanna be! solarpancake’s desire in this world is to be holier than everyone!!!!
Jes kiddin. Anyhoo. What are your thoughts on what I actually posted?
LikeLike
Isn’t it weird when you post something, then someone tries to refute what you said by questioning your motive, but doesn’t speak to what you said at all? Isn’t that weird LOL???
LikeLike
Solar Pancake, no, in fact, I did not mean “holier than thou.” I was saying that if it is righteous to vote only for good solid Christians–if God will in fact judge us for doing otherwise–then will we get even more credit if we take it a step further?
I have addressed your thoughts on previous occasions, more than once actually, and didn’t see the need to do so again. So I was taking it another step: You have in the past used a single verse, written to rulers, “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry” to say that rulers are required to “kiss the Son,” ans thus that we are required to elect only rulers who do so.
But we can easily take it a step further. God has many commands that we break every day. Every unbeliever is constantly breaking at least the first four of the Ten Commandments. So if I cannot vote for a “ruler” who doesn’t follow a single command to rulers, why can I pay my own money to a plumber who disobeys most or all of the Ten Commandments?
When I asked someone else holding your position whether she would take it the next step and not hire any unbeliever for any position, she agreed that she would hire only Christians. Clearly that is an impossible, and even unbiblical, position–but it is at least consistent. So I asked you if you were willing to be that consistent, and if not, why not?
LikeLike
Oh, and what you said at 8:30, yes, that would be weird if someone did that! Did someone do that, and I missed it?
LikeLike
Oh but Cheryl, did you not question my motive? Or are you not saying, as you typed, that my position has something to do with getting “more credit”? Did I say something about credit? Where? (P.S., I’m sorry your friend said stuff. I don’t feel compelled to answer for her).
I’ve referred to a number of verses here in other threads stating my case. I also mentioned that God issues specific commands to rulers, but none to doctors and lawyers and such. Did you not follow what I was getting at? I could explain further, if you wish? Or…
We could make an attempt to address each other (all of us here) and our views with charity, and maybe get to understand where we’re coming from. That doesn’t sound too bad. What’s your pref?
LikeLike
AJ,
“There are also numerous examples of God taking deeply flawed people, prostitutes, adulterers, King David, even persecutors of God’s people, and using them for his purposes, and to benefit others. It works both ways.”
How does that work? What does it justify? God uses prostitutes, so it follows we should support prostitutes? I never quite get this one.
LikeLike
Does context mean anything? God uses adulterers, therefore, we’re permitted to consider adulterers for the office of elders? Does this line of logic have *any* limits?
LikeLike