35 thoughts on “News/Politics 4-30-18

  1. Heh. 🙂

    We know…..
    We see it first hand every day, right Ricky?.


    “It started with Kanye and ended with Kim, featuring Emmanuel and Angela in between: this week showed President Trump upending expectations and confounding his critics on an epic scale.

    But perhaps the most revealing thing about it all was not what it said about the president but instead the light that it shined on the army of elitists arrayed against him – in politics, the media and the foreign policy establishment. There’s something truly instructive about their reactions to the developments of the past few days.”

    “Perhaps President Trump’s trade strategy – a tough stance against the European Union’s protectionism – might have helped. But the foreign policy establishment, of course, can’t possibly countenance such a possibility. Any deviation from their elitist orthodoxy is beyond the realm of reasonable opinion.

    When the elites saw the strong relationship that has developed between President Trump and his new best friend Emmanuel, they lost their minds. This didn’t make sense. Isn’t Trump an ignorant incompetent who makes America a laughing stock on the world stage?

    And then as the strong relationships turn to tangible progress, the anti-Trump crowd loses all credibility by churlishly denying or minimizing it.

    And nothing illustrates that pattern better than the elites’ reaction to the really big Kim development this week – of the Jong Un, rather than the Kardashian variety.

    Over the past few months, as President Trump has been moving forward his negotiating plan for North Korea – best summarized in the classic phrase “peace through strength” – the elites lost their minds.

    President Trump’s words spoken against Kim exploded on Twitter and in the media: “Fire and fury.” “Little Rocket Man.” “I’ve got a bigger button that works.”

    At every point, the geniuses in the establishment – whose Korea strategy, let’s remember, actually helped create the crisis of a nuclear-armed North Korea in the first place – warned us that the president’s actions were recklessly bringing us to the brink of nuclear war.

    And now that we see the Trump strategy making progress? Well – the critics have lost all credibility as they minimize and dismiss developments that they would hail as a historic breakthrough if engineered by anyone but President Trump.

    The truth, revealed this week, is that the elite have shown themselves to be totally superficial. Their hatred of Donald Trump is not based on policy, or real-world results, or anything at all of substance. Otherwise they would acknowledge and welcome the good news on the diplomatic front – and indeed the economic front back home.

    No – it’s clear that the elite’s hatred of Trump is based on style, not substance. Forget about what the president actually does. They just can’t stand the way Donald Trump is: the way he looks, the way he talks – even what he eats. In a nutshell, they’re snobs.

    And that’s why they have no credibility.”



  2. AJ @ 7:02, Bring that to the attention of your expert witnesses, Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi. They are always talking about helping the “poor”. They are also economically illiterate so they will like your man’s tariffs. Those two will love it when you call Reagan a “liar”. When Trump is gone you can just be a Democrat.


  3. SolarP, Archibald Cox was a special prosecutor as was Kenneth Starr.

    LOL. And this matters because….? Because it proves Nixon and Clinton really did, at bottom, have great respect for the rule of law, and Trump is so very different? I suppose your response will be “Trumpkin tweet cult idiot morons cultist brainwash,” (or some other random combination of those words) but I’m not seeing how that makes Trump some weird unique case in American politics. After decades of crass corruption from both sides of the aisle–with much of it not only going unpunished, but rewarded–*now* you notice this “rule of law” thing? And people who disagree with you on a few points are idiot moron brainwash (blah blah etc.)? Ooookayy.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. SolarP The question was: Who attacked law enforcement agencies and personnel (the FBI and the Justice Department) and who did not? Trump alone attacked the highest institutions of law enforcement in the US government.


  5. Here’s how the argument of a 12 year old goes:

    Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court to their faces during a State of the Union speech. Trump didn’t do that. Clearly, therefore, Trump respects the separation of powers and Obama and his mindless minions do not.


  6. SolarP, That is how the argument of a 12 year old goes. Read the article @ 8:12 for an adult perspective.


  7. I did, Ricky. It does the same thing you do. It asserts, arbitrary, the way you do, that *these things* are the measure of a lack of respect for the law, and given that assertion, we conclude Trump is so bad. Of course, that ignores all kinds of other indicators of a lack of regard for the rule of law and of which other presidents and numerous politicians have been guilty. Thankfully, I notice, a number of readers commenting on the article recognize the oversimplification of the argument.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Ah, yes. The “But Hillary” and “But Obama” arguments.

    So here is the deal. We would like to preserve the rule of law and some semblance of governmental and societal norms. Otherwise, the Dems will be screaming, “BUT TRUMP” for the next 100 years.


  9. No, it’s not but Hillary and but Obama, although I’m not sure why you’d fault anyone for using that line, since you’re the guy who did the comparing, and *comparison* is the basis of that article. But there’s not really any deal. The point is that it’s funny to scream and call names over an arbitrarily posited, limited set of moral criteria, like a voice crying in the wilderness, while everyone else wonders why it’s only just *now* you’ve decided to scream and yell.


  10. “When Trump is gone you can just be a Democrat.”

    I can never be a Democrat. I don’t support baby killing and I don’t support politicians or groups who do. They are also anti-God, which again, I won’t support, nor will I support people who are anti-God.

    You see, unlike you, I won’t jump into bed with the enemies of all I hold dear just because I dislike who my party of choice has selected to lead. That’s your thing, so stop projecting.

    It’s you who is a card carrying member of The Resistance and Never-Trumpers. You can go, you already have for all intents and purposes. I prefer to stay and make the R party what I and other Trump supporters want it to be. It’s our party now, and the quicker we purge the disloyal traitors in disguise like yourself, the better off we’ll be.

    I’m not going anywhere, I’m enjoying this way too much.


  11. Now that I explained who we are, this is what we want. our demands if you will. Trust the process, it’s coming…….

    You and your ilk built this.

    And we’re going to burn it down.


    ““Drain The Swamp” was an important rallying cry of the Trump campaign. But does it still resonate a year-and-a-half after the 2016 election?

    It does. So finds a poll commissioned by Ear to the Ground and conducted by McLaughlin & Associates.

    The poll (of 1,000 likely voters) found that 55 percent of Americans are “concerned” or “very concerned” about “the Swamp,” with 36 percent very concerned. 59 percent of those who identify as “very conservative” said they were very concerned.

    Levels of concern increased when the Swamp was defined in terms of “the influence of the network of DC-centric professional bureaucrats, media, and insider elites.” 60 percent said it was important “to eliminate the influence” of that network.

    To what extent do voters blame Republicans, who after all now control the White House and have majorities in both chambers of Congress, for the failure to curb the Swamp? According to the poll, almost half of Americans (46 percent), and 41 percent of all conservatives, blame Republicans for not draining the Swamp.

    Indeed, when asked what is the top impediment to draining the Swamp, 42 percent of voters said it was the GOP. Republicans thus ranked just behind lobbyists.

    What do these results tell us about the upcoming mid-term election? Nothing reassuring for Republicans. The base believes the Swamp is a major problem and a significant chunk of the base holds Republicans responsible for enabling it.”


  12. And for those of you who think the govt and hospital folks got it right in the Alfie case, think again. This is the perfect example of why govt should have no say in your treatment. There are bigger issues here.


    “Alfie struggled against a rare degenerative brain disease. Once taken off life support, Alfie was supposed to die immediately without life support. That’s what a British doctor testified in court back in February.

    That isn’t quite the way it turned out. Alfie lived long enough to make himself an example. We have frequently commented on the immiseration of Venezuela as exemplary of the fate of socialism. The case of Alfie Evans in Britain’s National Health Service is exemplary and symbolic in its own way. That must be one reason why the British authorities refused to relent in their assertion of control over Alfie’s fate.

    As for the symbolism, here are a few items as they occur to me. However obvious, I hope they may nevertheless be worth saying:

    We have turned over vast swaths of our lives to the control of experts.

    That’s the way the left wants it.

    This is what what socialism and the administrative state are all about.

    The “knowledge” of “experts” is frequently a pretense to assert control over our lives.

    Individual rights lose their meaning under socialism and the administrative state.

    Abuse of the right to life is “part and parcel of a health system dominated by the state rather than the individual or the family” (as James Freeman puts it).

    With the loss of the right to life and property goes the right to liberty.”


    “Yesterday this column included this case among the “annals of single-payer health care,” but it’s not a question of money or the use of British medical resources. The Catholic church and the Italian government are ready to take the child off Britain’s hands. It’s a question of a medical and legal system that denies parents the right to make such decisions. Such abuse appears to be part and parcel of a health system dominated by the state rather than the individual or the family.

    But anyone thinking that it can’t happen here in the U.S. until Bernie Sanders is inaugurated seems to be wrong. Betsy McCaughey writes in the New York Post:

    Texas law gives life-and-death power to hospitals, never mind what families want. In most states, including New York, families are likely to win if they go to court to stop a hospital from pulling the plug. Unfortunately, they don’t know that and get steamrolled by hospital staff..”

    “Mark Hemingway observes that back in the U.K., the Merseyside Police has tweeted a chilling warning suggesting that the right to decide medical questions is not the only liberty at risk:

    We’ve issued a statement this evening to make people aware that social media posts which are being posted in relation to Alder Hey and the Alfie Evans situation are being monitored and may be acted upon.
    Perhaps British authorities will monitor social media enough to recognize the public revulsion they have inspired and then act to restore the rights of parents and patients.”

    Liked by 1 person

  13. I’m aware of who he is.

    And that in this instance, he is correct.

    You seem incapable of grasping the concept that even someone you disagree with can be right in some cases. You should learn that, it’d be a big help.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. AJ, I’d be curious what you think about someone who believes as I do; not that my opinion is so important, but I hold the same view as other smarter, wiser, more respectable people than I on the subject, so I wonder what you think of this view:

    Some people (with whom I agree) are Never-Trumpers not because they have the naive belief that he is appreciably worse than numerous other people who have held the job, or who have been nominated by the party to run for it, but because Never-Trumpism falls under the category of Never-Paganism (for lack of better term). Mitt Romney’s (actual) cultish rejection of Jesus Christ is just as bad as any lies Donald Trump may speak, or any politicization of government departments, or advocacy of legal baby murdering Barack Obama may put forward. And that kind of rejection of God disqualifies such men to hold office, in the opinion of some people. Do you really lay some of the blame for the state of the nation at the feet of people who hold potential officeholders to this standard?


  15. Ricky @8:15 Yes, that is pretty much how I see the TN race to replace Corker. A couple of months ago, I said I was voting for the Democrat (Bredesen) because the Republican (Blackburn) voted to change the net neutrality rules which I believe will eventually work against smaller online businesses. But I lied. Although Bredesen is not a bad sort of Democrat in some ways and not rabidly pro-abortion, I can’t bring myself to vote for him because 1) he plans to be a brake on Trump while Blackburn is a very strong Trump supporter and 2) the Republican Senate majority is much too thin already to carry much of the President’s agenda. And besides, there could be a SCOTUS appointment in the next few years. Bredesen was up 10 points in the polls a couple of weeks ago. I had considered not voting at all, but I guess I must. It is my duty, for the greater good and for the sake of Trumpism. ;–)

    As for the political flavors here, we are not rabidly partisan I think. I’m not sure about the other sections of the state, but East TN is pretty well described in the article:

    But a statewide campaign in Tennessee is not like running in a safe House district or doing another segment on Fox News. And not all Republicans are alike.

    Take East Tennessee, which has produced many of the statewide Republicans in recent years, including Mr. Corker, Lamar Alexander, Howard Baker and the current governor, Bill Haslam. Mountain Republicans have 150 years of political tradition and, while conservative, have often displayed a pragmatic streak.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. You seem incapable of grasping the concept that even someone you disagree with can be right in some cases.

    Ain’t that the truth? There’s another commenter here who often does the same thing. Could you imagine if that logic actually made sense in real life? We would never be able to hold the same view as someone we disagree with on certain points? Like, how many points of disagreement would there have to be between people before they could no longer be allowed to agree on any points at all? And I guess that would be the end of questioning hostile witnesses in court, even though it has always been the case that getting agreement from hostile witnesses actually *bolsters* a claim in court. Do people who require others to reject arguments on this basis actually believe they agree 100% with other people in the world about stuff?

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Solar Pancake, we have had this discussion before. Rejection of God disqualifies someone for the office of elder, disqualifies someone from marriage to a believer, and a few other things. But he is not disqualified for jobs in the civil realm. He can be a dentist, a businessman–even a CEO. And yes, he can be a dog catcher, sheriff, mayor, senator, president, and so on. Israel had a religious test for office, but we are not a theocracy.

    Locally we have a very young man running for office. My husband and I will probably not vote in the primary this year (since we will not yet be living in the town we will live in for the fall election, and my husband is concerned lest voting in one district in the primary makes us ineligible to vote elsewhere in the fall), but if we were voting, we would be likely to vote against him, though he is a strong Christian, because we know his family. We don’t know for sure what the young man believes, but his father is a virulent (vocal) believer that only Christians should hold office, that public school is evil and Christians who send their children to one are sinning and should be under church discipline, that social security is wrong and a church should accept as a candidate for pastor only a man who agrees not to take social security. The son is running on the platform of being more pro-life than the pro-life incumbent (who is himself endorsed by the local pro-life organization). I don’t know where either father or son stands on such issues as putting homosexuals to death or criminalizing any abortion (even, say, for a tubal pregnancy), but I don’t believe that the Christian version of “sharia” is a viable option for a country, and I wouldn’t dare vote for the man without knowing his take on such things. Why? Because a theonomist ties Christian faithfulness to a misunderstanding of the Old Testament in such a way to be utterly confusing to an unbeliever and that can hurt our testimony. He utterly misunderstands what it means to live in a secular society. Not everything that is immoral is, or ought to be, illegal. And Scripture nowhere tells us that we can only do business with believers, even in the secular realm. That is going beyond Scripture, and that is dangerous.

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Solar,

    “Do you really lay some of the blame for the state of the nation at the feet of people who hold potential officeholders to this standard?”

    I’ll try to explain.

    First off, several folks I love and hold in high esteem are Never-Trumpers for the reasons you mentioned. I get it, and I respect their choice. Not that it matters, but even I selected a different candidate for the job at primary time in my state. But I lost that fight.

    When I have a choice, I usually always lean toward such candidates. But we don’t always have that option, like with Romney and Obama, so I vote according to other issues that matter, like pro-life, small govt types, and so on. That’s why I picked Romney. Obama does not represent me at all, so I take the pragmatic vote, which was Mitt.

    And those standards are not the argument that most Never-Trumpers are making. God, and His standards, gets barely a mention from most. Even from Ricky, although he does seem quite fixated on Trump’s affairs.. Their issues with Trump are more on trade, foreign policy, globalism, and actual policy. The people you mentioned aren’t the ones making the noise. The Never-Trumpers who voted for Hillary and publicly stated as much don’t care about God at all, other than to pay him lip service when they think it’s appropriate, they are the ones writing columns and making the noise. While I can respect the heartfelt reluctance of some to vote for him for the reasons you mentioned, that’s not why the majority of Never-Trumpers didn’t. They’re hypocrites.

    Also, and this is a big one for me. There is a process here. A way this is supposed to work. Trump ran against a ridiculous number of candidates, the most on one party’s ticket in over 100 years. And he defeated them all, legally, at the ballot box, and with impressive numbers. Having worked out so, history and common decency have always dictated the party rally to the nominee. There’s certainly precedent for this. It’s about loyalty and keeping your word.

    Now, a loyal and decent group of people who signed on to a loyalty pledge they pushed because they didn’t trust Trump, would do the right thing and honor their word as well, right? All 16 others? Yeah, how’d that go?

    See, these are the people I have a problem with, not the voter who held to their view from the start for the reasons you mentioned. I get it, but I don’t do my politics that way. These are the choices, pick one, or don’t, everyone makes that call themselves.

    My issue lies with the hypocritical, lying, deceitful, backstabbing disloyal, traitorous ones whose word is meaningless. These are the ones who have undermined this president since day one, many of who are being exposed now. Them I got a real problem with.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. Yes, Cheryl, I know we’ve had this discussion before and I think in each one you’ve raised the spectre of various scary things I didn’t say and that weren’t necessary to infer. (Like, i didn’t say, and it’s not a ramification of my view, that we’re only allowed to do business with believers. I wonder why you always discuss this topic that way with me).

    On that note, regarding your first paragraph, I never said anything about qualifications of a dentist or CEO, as regards their jobs AS dentist or CEO, because the Bible doesn’t say anything about those occupations. But it does say plenty about the qualifications of political rulers, whether in Israel or not, whether prior to or following Christ’s advent.

    I’m sorry you’re faced with difficult voting decisions, but none of those anecdotes really defeats any argument I’m making.


  20. That’s cool, AJ. I figured your problem was more with the people who take the similar pragmatic approach that you take, and I agree, I really can’t figure why Trump, after all the other poor candidates (whether for president or Congress) is now so suddenly egregiously worse than other politicians that have run. Yes, I could imagine some who might have been better, but in comparison with the run of the mill politician, the only thing that really distinguishes Trump are his ridiculous tweets and apparent sometime ignorance of the way government works.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. SP, my argument mentioning CEOs and such is not because you have said that it is an issue, but because I don’t think your point IS biblical or logically valid.

    As far as I remember, your only “biblical” argument is that rulers are told “Kiss the Son.” My point is that there are biblical commands to all people, including commands to turn to Christ. If a man has not chosen Christ, and that invalidates him for office based on one verse, then why isn’t the farmer also invalidated from working at his job if he disobeys Christ? Scripture has all sorts of verses to masters–surely they apply to CEOs? If we cannot elect a sheriff or mayor unless he is a Christian (or wherever you draw the line at electing only Christians), then why can someone in human resources hire a manager who is not a believer? How can I choose a dentist who is not? I know you are not making the argument–but it seems to me far more logically consistent than the case you are making.

    All else being equal, I would choose the believer running for office. I have in fact chosen candidates based largely on their being Christians in good standing with their church, not knowing much else about them. But faced with a man with the right experience, character, positions, etc. for office (but who is not a believer) or a man who is inexperienced with unproven character (like the barely-old-enough-to-shave candidate I mentioned above) but who is a Christian, I will vote for the unbeliever.

    If someone handed you authority to choose the government employees for a country with no missionary presence and no Christians, would you decide it couldn’t have a government at all? Or would you recognize that government is a civil entity and not a religious one, and form a government? What if one missionary had been present for two years, no converts yet. Would you try to convince the missionary to become the government employee and leave missions, because only Christians can serve in government?

    Besides not seeing your position as biblically defensible, I do not think it is sound or practical. If we wait to vote until a candidate is the right sort of Christian in addition to having the right positions and the right experience, we won’t vote at all most of the time. Now, if it were a true biblical requirement, that wouldn’t matter. It’s foolish when a young woman marries someone who isn’t biblically qualified because she thinks he’s the best she’s going to get. But political office isn’t like that. It’s more like my husband and I looking to buy a house, and having 50 or 100 things we want in a house and taking all of them into account . . . but choosing a house that doesn’t have two of the things we saw as pretty important. In politics, unless you vote for your identical twin, you probably won’t get a candidate who believes exactly the same way you do. And he may in fact not be qualified for the office of elder, and in fact might not even be qualified to join your church.


  22. See Ricky, it’s not just R’s that have a problem with the youth.


    “A new Reuters poll shows that millennials have started to move away from the Democrat party. While the Democrats tout environment and social justice as key draws, the millennials who spoke to Reuters want mainly one thing: a stable economy.

    Reuters reported:

    The online survey of more than 16,000 registered voters ages 18 to 34 shows their support for Democrats over Republicans for Congress slipped by about 9 percentage points over the past two years, to 46 percent overall. And they increasingly say the Republican Party is a better steward of the economy.

    Although nearly two of three young voters polled said they do not like Republican President Donald Trump, their distaste for him does not necessarily extend to all Republicans or translate directly into votes for Democratic congressional candidates.

    The Democrats have long counted on young voters and will definitely need them in 2018 as the party tries to take 23 seats in the House.””


  23. In other not really shocking news, the Iranians lied to Obama and the world.

    At least the Israeli’s are willing to call a spade a spade.


    “Reports indicated “Israeli intelligence uncovered a huge amount of new and dramatic information on the Iranian nuclear program.”

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a public announcement at 1:00 PM ET to discuss these findings (or as much as can be made public) and indicated he shared the intel with the US.

    Mossad managed to obtain a half ton of original documents germane to Iran’s nuclear program. Incredibly. Documents revealed Monday explain how Iran continued nuclear weapons development using different organizations.

    The timing of the announcement is… interesting. Newly minted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in Israel hours ago and President Trump is supposed to make his own announcement on the contentious Obama-era Iran nuke deal in twelve days.”

    Burn the deal. It’s not worth the paper it’s printed on.


    And speaking of Israel and Iran……


    “Overnight there were massive explosions at multiple military bases in Syria, including bases believed to be run by Iran.

    One of the explosions, which was a combination of enormous secondary explosions, was so large it registered as a low-level earthquake on seismic instruments in neighboring countries.”

    And as a bonus, it’s sure to tick off the Russians. 🙂


  24. Another Bush era Never-Trumper joins The Resistance.

    At least he has the decency to admit what he has become.


    “Lifelong Republican Richard Painter announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate as a Democrat. Behind him on the left is his wife Karen, on the right communications coordinator Samantha Denney.

    Richard Painter, a longtime Republican who was chief ethics lawyer for George W. Bush’s White House, intends to run for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota this year as a Democrat, according to a filing he made recently with federal elections officials.

    Painter, a persistent and frequent critic of President Donald Trump on national cable TV news appearances and on Twitter, is expected to announce his candidacy at a Monday news conference.

    He’s running for Democrat Al Franken’s former seat. Franken resigned Jan. 2 in the wake of numerous sexual harassment allegations.”


  25. Hmm, Cheryl. I don’t know whether to reply to the few sentences you typed that are relevant to any argument I’ve made, or to the bulk of your post that constructs a bunch of stuff I haven’t said, nor follows from what I’ve said, but purports to be an argument *against* what I’ve said. Why do you find it necessary to assume I insist, somehow, only on candidates who believe “exactly” the way I do? Apparently, you agree we are to hold elders to a particular biblical standard. Do you take that to mean candidates for elder must “believe exactly the way you do”? Of course not. So why assume my view leads to that conclusion? And how do you conclude (and get off implying) my view places impossible conditions on church membership? Is it possible for you to discuss these things a little more charitably?

    Your “country with no missionary presence and no Christians”: What if someone handed you authority to start a church there? How do you select elders?

    The Bible contains many verses pertaining to political rulers besides “kiss the Son.” But speaking of that verse, if we are to read it with the degree of distinction you place between “civil entities” and “religious entities,” there’s really no reason for God to have addressed that Messianic verse and entire Messianic Psalm to political rulers the way He did; after all, we’re all supposed to bow to the Son.

    You say,

    If we wait to vote until a candidate is the right sort of Christian in addition to having the right positions and the right experience, we won’t vote at all most of the time.

    That prospect isn’t nearly as scary as I think you want it to sound. For one thing, who cares?? I really don’t think we’d be any worse if as a nation of Christians had withheld their vote in this way (and they can still vote on other initiatives and voice their opinions on various other ways). In fact, as a practical matter, I think the Christian voice would hold FAR more sway today than it does if we’d have held this principle in our voting patterns the last few decades. But beyond that, God doesn’t need to wait for us to vote for the right, “qualified” Mormon or philanderer or sophisticated atheist conservative in order to accomplish His will in the nation, and it’s not “going beyond Scripture” to believe that.


  26. Iran knows they’ve been busted.

    And further proof Obama lied to the American people when he made this deal.


    “Iranian deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi appeared to signal Monday the country’s imminent withdrawal from the nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration in 2015.

    “The Iran nuclear deal is no longer sustainable for Iran in its present form, without regard to a US exit,” Araghchi stated Monday, according to the Iranian Students News Agency.



  27. And for those that will insist this is just yet another Zionist plot……….



    “U.S. officials and congressional insiders view the disclosure Monday by Israel of Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop a nuclear weapon as game over for the landmark nuclear deal, telling the Washington Free Beacon that new evidence of Iran’s top secret nuclear workings makes it virtually impossible for President Donald Trump to remain in the agreement.

    Senior Trump administration officials confirmed the findings as authentic and praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s for disclosing thousands of secret documents proving Iran lied about its past work on a nuclear warhead, telling the Free Beacon the revelation was a “powerful presentation” by Israel outlining why the Iran deal must be fixed or killed.

    U.S. officials who reviewed the secret documents confirmed their authenticity and said that Israel has shared the information fully with the United States, most likely to help build the case for Trump to abandon the nuclear deal, rather than try to fix what the White House views as a series of insurmountable flaws.

    Multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon say that Monday’s presentation by Netanyahu resulted from a recent conversation between the prime minister and Trump, who has expressed his opposition to remaining in the deal.”


  28. Solar, absolutely God doesn’t need our votes, nor do I think voting is a Christian obligation. I didn’t vote for Trump, if you recall; I believe him to be unqualified on the “character” front. But I also think it was a very tough election with no good options. I definitely wasn’t trying to say that you think a person has to agree with you on everything to be a church member (or an elder); my point was that a person can be unqualified to be either of those two things and still be a civilly respectable man or woman and fit for office.

    It was probably hyperbole to say a person has to believe “exactly” as you do in order to be fit to hold office. But I was thinking you were the one who pretty much said a few years ago that no candidates for president in the last few decades (or at least none of the ones who won) was someone to vote for (including Ronald Reagan, if one believed him to be a Christian). I’m not sure whether you have ever named anyone who you believe to be a credible candidate for office (for president or for any other office). So I had the impression (perhaps a wrong one) that you find very few candidates worthy of your vote. If that is the case, it may be an exaggeration to say they have to agree with you “exactly,” but you are much more precise on your standards than most of us are.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. On the White House correspondents dinner from Terry Mattingly:



    … This really wasn’t about politics. It was about culture.

    Look, Donald Trump was and is a target-rich environment for lots of valid reasons. Anyone who has read GetReligion at all during the past 24 months or so knows that I was 100 percent #AntiTrump (and #AntiHillary too) and I still am. I think that Trump was unqualified to be president and, if evidence gained through testimony under oath (as opposed to waves of ink from anonymous sources) led to his impeachment, I would think that was a sobering, but positive, event for our nation.

    This disaster in the public square was not about Trump. Play close attention to the nasty, personal attacks last night on several key members of this administration and their families – in some cases because of their religious beliefs.

    Again, this is not political for me. I am mad and sad today because this hellish event (a) helped Trump with his most loyal fans, (b) did further damage to American public discourse (obviously the Tweeter In Chief deserves blame too) and, most of all, (c) undercut efforts to defend journalism’s First Amendment role in American life among news consumers in zip codes inside the two coasts. As a journalist, I am furious. …

    … Read what you can stand. Then take a long walk and do some thinking.

    Journalism deserves better than this. American public discourse deserves better than this.


    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.