33 thoughts on “News/Politics 7-2-18

  1. I don’t know who Larinzo Lamath is. But I see on the news that he has filed for divorce from his fifth wife.
    Seems that those women would know by now. I don’t know how much alimony Larinzo pays, but those women must be getting something for a night with Larinzo.
    If he can’t keep five women, we know by now where the fault lies.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It seems strange to me that nobody cared about the Kennedy’s or Clinton’s sexual infidelity. Indeed, they celebrated Ted’s and Bill’s infidelity.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Chas and Solar P, The article raises theological questions more than political questions. For decades I looked at black church attendance, black illegitimacy rates and crime rates and asked if many black pastors had been preaching a false gospel. Now I look at the moral and immoral values of Southern Baptists and charismatics and ask if many white pastors have been preaching a false gospel. Many of the leading young Southern Baptist preachers are asking the same question. Their message is changing. You hear the word “repentance” in sermons.

    The upper class Christian pastors also need to look at their messages. A wholly Biblical view of the marital relationship must be proclaimed.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. The Cult doesn’t need to concern itself with the discussion above. It involves what has been preached in our churches, not loyalty to Dear Leader.


  5. What’s been preached in the churches and para church ministries (both explicitly and between the lines) is loyalty to the Republican party regardless of their stances on economics, war and taxes. In fact, the abortion/marriage/Israel factor has corralled many people (I am one) into voting for people they otherwise would not support—such as those who would dismantle Social Security and other safety net programs, or those who are too quick to go to war. That is just the way our political system is set up. But unfortunately, churches and para church ministries have engaged themselves in this way to some extent for many years. I date it back to the day (or era) when corporate America entered the church and we began to view ‘selling’ Jesus to a materialistic people as an acceptable alternative to church growth through solid theology. That may or may not roughly correlate to the rise of the Moral Majority on the political scene , but I do remember when I first saw it happen in my church. I was a teenager, but I knew part of the significance even then: it was a departure from orthodox Christianity.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Then there is this…. from the priest of a friend of mine in another state.

    June 29, AD 2018

    We are even now seeing the end of the Constantinian synthesis of Church and state and the view that western Christian culture should be the social and political norm. This fusion of religion and culture, which we call Christendom, has been in terminal decline for many years, and we are now seeing Christendom (but not Christianity!) in its last gasps.

    When Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, the Church took on all kinds of secondary functions which, strictly speaking, were not part of its mission. Of course, this mission drift was precisely what Constantine had in mind to shore up the Empire. The Church became the forum, the agora, the marketplace where people gathered. The Church provided the vast majority of education, almost all of the social services, medical care, welfare, as well as being the locus of literature, art and music. The clergy became responsible for various functions of the state, vestiges of which we still see today, such as clergy performing marriages which have civil validity.

    It has occurred to me, and to many others of late, that as the Christendom model gasps its last gasp, all of the non-theological and non-spiritual activities that characterized the Church of Constantine and the Church of the Renaissance are being stripped from us.

    It’s always dangerous to make predictions, but here are some trends that should be on our radar going forward. Of course, being in the more-religious South, these developments will take longer to manifest themselves in our milieu, but they have come and are coming:

    1. The institutional Church in the West is going to be reduced drastically in size. Christianity itself will become less nominal, more defined, and more outside of the mainstream of the culture
    Pope Benedict XVI, writing as Fr Joseph Ratzinger, said in 1969 that
    “The church will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members … But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times …But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.”

    2. For the foreseeable future, many in our society will have no interest in the life of the institutional Church, but those who do will want not “Christianity Lite,” but the Real Thing. The current headlong rush of the Church to be “more permissive and secular than thou” will die out with the Baby Boom generation.

    3. Those interested in having church life will want Christianity in a community context. The mega-church model, a peculiarly American phenomenon, is still doing well, particularly in the South, but less so as time goes on.
    And yet, this is in fact a very exciting time to be a Christian. We should not and cannot become chronically negative or reactionary or unduly fearful, much less panicky. It will be that religious communities like St Jxxxx’, with lives focused on prayer, Sacraments and lifelong formation that will have the strength to preserve the faith as we move through the present to the future. The Good News is that God is a God who acts in history, and in the fullness of time, all things will be brought to their perfection in accordance with his will. There is absolutely no question or worry about that.

    Yours with every blessing,


    Liked by 2 people

  7. From The Searchers:

    Martin Pawley: Do you think old Scar means to kill us?

    Ethan Edwards: He’s got to. We’ve been asking for it for five years.


  8. More fake news from Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent for the New York Times,


    “A conservative lawyer offered a case to debunk tweets by Maggie Haberman, White House correspondent for the New York Times, in which she said everyone on President Trump’s list of 25 Supreme Court candidates is against abortion and has been vetted by the Federalist Society, a right-leaning legal organization.

    “They’re all against abortion – they’ve been screened by the Federalist Society – making this point moot,” Haberman tweeted Sunday in response to a tweet quoting Trump stating during a Fox News interview that he will “probably not” ask potential nominees how they would vote in any cases related to Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that made abortion legal nationwide.

    “To be clearer here after a reader email – they’ve addressed their views on constitutionality of Roe v Wade previously. There is a school of thought among some senior Rs that for Kavanaugh it’s a lesser issue. But as for how they view the law,’they’ve all stated it,” she added, referring to Brett Kavanaugh, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit who is on Trump’s list.

    Ed Whelan, a lawyer and former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia who is now president of the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center, called such an assertion “absurd,” stressing that Haberman has presented no evidence to back up her tweets and noted that he’s not aware of any of the 25 candidates being interviewed by the Federalist Society.”


  9. Kim @10:32 Thank you for that very well written letter from your friend’s priest! I think he is spot-on. And his thoughts are very much in line with Rod Dreher’s book The Benedict Option which I highly recommend for anyone interested in more detail on the subject.

    There was only one sentence he made that was a little startling to me: “The clergy became responsible for various functions of the state, vestiges of which we still see today, such as clergy performing marriages which have civil validity.” I guess I had never thought about religious marriage ceremonies not being binding civilly…though perhaps I should have. In order to be binding, the religious ceremony is not sufficient; the marriage has to have a state license in order to be civilly binding–at least that is my understanding. That in itself is a great power.

    It was an excellent thought provoking letter. Thanks for sharing it. :–)

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Another never-Trump pretend conservative has gone full on pro-abortion Democrat.

    If we followed Jennifer Rubin’s ideals, we’d be mocking her endlessly for the rest of her days. Thankfully, we won’t/don’t listen to her, because despite her claims, she’s never been on the conservative side.


    “On Sunday’s AM Joy, MSNBC contributor and Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin declared that Sarah Huckabee Sanders deserves a “life sentence” of being harassed publicly as she asserted that the White House press secretary “has no right to live a life of no fuss, no muss” because of her negative interactions with the press.

    The phony conservative columnist also freaked out over the possibility of abortion being banned, and suggested Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are “phony pro-choice women” if they vote for President Donald Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    After recalling the possibility that the two Republican women would vote for a nominee who speaks generally of upholding previous Supreme Court rulings as precedents, but who may still end up voting to overturn Roe V. Wade, Rubin urged pressure on the two Senators to vote against a Trump pick:

    The message to those two women by Democrats by pro-choice women in those two states — by the entire states of Maine and Alaska — has to be simple. You vote for this, Ms. Collins, Ms. Murkowski, you have voted to criminalize abortion — this is on you. And we’re not going to accept these nonsense excuses that, ‘Well, because he said he was in favor of precedent, this won’t count, you can vote for him.’ No! It has to be all-out, on the ground in those states.

    She then suggested that they may be “phony” in claiming to be “pro-choice” as she added: “Those women Have to be put under a glaring light so that they finally have to make a choice that actually does go against their party. Unless they were just phony pro-choice women all along — which is distinctly possible.””

    Liked by 1 person

  11. I think there are more people including me who would not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
    Before you jump on me, hear me out….
    If we make it illegal we end the conversation. I would rather be able to have a conversation with you and convince you NOT to have an abortion than to make it illegal.
    That being said, I also want it to be treated like the surgical procedure that it is. A woman gets more care and follow up having a fibroid cyst removed than she does from after care with an abortion.


  12. _____________________



    Sen. Susan Collins said today that she will “not support a [Supreme Court] nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade.” When Collins met with President Trump, she told him of this position. She also told him that some of the 25 names on his list of possible nominees are unacceptable to her. It’s not clear to me whether she identified them by name, but I assume she either did or will.

    It’s unlikely that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee can be confirmed without Collins’ vote. There are only 51 Republican Senators and one of them, Sen. John McCain, is apparently incapacitated. If Collins defects, it’s likely that the nominee will top out at 49 GOP votes.

    Will a Democrat make up the shortfall? I doubt it. …


  13. Sorry Kim,

    Better to end the conversation than a human life. And I have to say, I’m a little shocked to hear that you don’t want a deeply flawed legal opinion that’s resulted in 50 million+ babies being killed by their mothers overturned. This is our society’s greatest shame, and there is no justification for it continuing.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. AJ, I mostly agree with you. I firmly believe that the more and more medical advancements that give a baby born earlier and earlier a viable, healthy life, the fewer and fewer abortions there will be.
    I am willing to lose a battle so we can win the war. Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being overturned no matter what the left says.


  15. This cannot be tolerated.


    “Multiple suspects, including an Iranian diplomat, have been arrested in connection to a plan to bomb the Free Iranian Conference in Paris.

    “The two suspects in Belgium were intercepted by Belgian police on Saturday, with 500 grams of TATP, a home-made explosive produced from easily available chemicals, as well as a detonation device found in their car, a joint statement by the Belgian prosecutor and the intelligence services said,” The National reports.

    The two suspects, a 38-year-old man and a 33-year-old woman, were both charged with attempted terrorist murder and preparation of a terrorist attack.”

    “Two other suspects were arrested in France and Germany; the suspect in Germany was a diplomat in the Iranian embassy in Vienna, Belgian officials say. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is scheduled to visit Austria on Wednesday.”

    Both Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani were in attendance.


  16. Kim, I have no idea whether Roe v Wade can ever be overturned–but it has no legal or medical grounding, completely apart from its sheer and gross immorality. I believe (if I remember correctly) that you argued against the legalization of drugs, and I can’t imagine any argument that one could make against drugs being legal that cannot be made (even stronger) against legalizing the slaughter of babies in the womb.

    Being legal gives it a bit of moral high ground and greater access. Whether the murder is lynching, abortion, gas chambers, or euthanasia, a society that condones and tolerates–and supports–legal murder is a society with a fatal flaw. Yes, some women will kill their babies anyway, legal or not, just as some kids partake of marijuana legal or not. But legal murder is a moral travesty . . . and ironically it has resulted in more “unwanted” babies and more child abuse of born children. A culture that applauds child murder really can’t be too queasy about child torture and abuse.

    Doing away with Roe v Wade wouldn’t suddenly make abortion illegal across the land–it would return it to being a states’ rights issue. Some states would have free and unhindered access, some states might leave it up to the counties, and some states might make it illegal except for the life of the mother. The battle would continue to be fought, and the arguments continue to be made. But states could choose to outlaw it and not have the federal government overrule them.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. I think you’re mistaken about Roe v Wade as well. This is the best opportunity we’ve had to end it. And Trump seems determined to appoint a conservative constitutionalist, so the time is now to act. Opportunities like this are rare, and should be taken when they present themselves.


  18. Re 1:59. Looks like Collins has presented a list of 25 names of Roe opponents. Those names should probably be put at the top of the list. Let them vote and let it fail, when the new Senate convenes there should be more than enough Republicans to pass . It might even prod some never-Trumpers to the polls. ;–)


  19. So it’s OK to have a pro-abortion litmus test for judges, just not a pro-life litmus test. That’s basically what we’re being told by the left and Collins.

    There are some up for re-election Dems in purple areas who could be pressured as well. If nothing else, put someone up and make them own it, prior to the midterms of course. Call their bluff.

    If it doesn’t work, then make sure you vote to make the numbers what they need to be come Nov, if you’re in a state that get’s a say.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. HRW,

    As with the socialist craze sweeping the millenial ranks, educators are responsible for this nonsense as well. A serious lack of historical knowledge about just what Holocaust survivors went thru causes the ignorant to draw comparisons that are completely unfounded and lacking rationality. When educators are believing and teaching this ignorance, students will follow suit.

    First the idiot.


    “”Wake up, Princetonians,” Aftel begins his first piece, written several days before Trump signed his 20 June executive order ending family separation. “Wake up, America. Wake up to the state terror that is happening every single day in the United States” [emphasis in original].

    “Since October 2017,” he continues, “the Trump administration has forcibly separated at least 2,000 undocumented immigrant children from their parents” at the border, adding that “this is consistent with the Trump administration’s ongoing debasement of our most vital American ideals, furthering its xenophobic, racist, misogynistic, and Islamophobic agenda.”
    “This, Aftel asserts, “exemplifies fascist totalitarianism at its most ruthless, unhinged level: that is, deceptively upending reality to terrorize children.”

    He then begins to compare the Trump administration to Nazi Germany, writing, “Although family separation is not murderous genocide, the ‘we are just taking them to bathe’ tactic is chillingly reminiscent of the way Nazis during the Holocaust told people in concentration camps that they were going to have a shower before they were gassed to death.”

    In the conclusion to his first piece, Aftel laments that “it is no wonder that now our country’s federal government—under the Trump administration—is participating in state terror, without any end in sight,” chiding “us”—that is, Americans and Princetonians, himself included—for “our ignorance, disengagement, and moral indifference; there is blood on all of our hands.”

    Here’s why he’s wrong, and what a real Holocaust survivor thinks of his extremely ignorant and pathetic comparisons.


    “High-profile members of America’s media and political circles have used amplified, irresponsible rhetoric to describe President Trump’s immigration detainment policies. Terminology from Nazi Germany is now regularly used to describe American immigration policy in the public arena. Many have likened illegal alien detainment facilities on the Southern border to “concentration camps,” referred to Trump as a “Nazi” or “Hitler” and call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents the “Gestapo.”

    Democratic Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal likened America’s zero tolerance immigration policy to the “cattle cars of Nazi Germany.” Many pundits and politicians have echoed the sentiment.

    David Tuck was born in Poland in 1929. He was enslaved by the Nazis and survived multiple concentration camps. In the wake of pundits and politicians comparing illegal immigrant detainment facilities in modern day America to Nazi concentration camps, Tuck felt compelled to speak out.

    Today, Tuck has a message for those comparing American illegal immigrant detainment facilities to the Holocaust. “They know nothing of the Holocaust,” Tuck says. “Grow up. You can’t compare. Every time I hear it, it’s sickening.”

    “Wake up,” he said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller. “This is not the Holocaust.””


  21. I think she’d do just fine. 🙂

    If they want a fight, let’s give them one.


    “Neil Gorsuch was an incredibly safe pick for Trump. Despite the plaintiff wails of Democrats about a “stolen” seat, they didn’t have much with which to go after Gorsuch on the merits.

    Nonetheless Democrats filibustered Gorsuch, forcing Republican’s to play the nuclear option for a SCOTUS nominee (as Democrats did in 2013 for all lower courts and made clear they would do if Hillary won and they regained the Senate).

    Having forced the nuclear option for Gorsuch, Democrats made it easier for Trump to pick a more controversial nominee next time. It was a strategic error for Democrats, much as their exercising the nuclear option for all lower courts in 2013 came back to bite them.

    We are now at that next time, with Justice Anthony Kennedy retiring. What has changed is that Republicans have an even thinner margin in the Senate after losing the Alabama seat.

    Most of the reporting on the “short list” includes the same names — Amy Coney Barrett, Thomas Hardiman, Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amul Thapar. The Daily Caller reports that Barrett and Kavanaugh are the two leading contenders.

    Any of them would be fine.

    My sense is that Kavanaugh is the “safest” pick, in the sense of a Gorsuch-like relatively non-controversial nominee. That’s important, because Trump can’t afford to lose any Republicans. There is a one-vote margin, but McCain’s health is in question. Losing Susan Collins (the most likely defector) would not be fatal to a nomination assuming McCain can vote (and Pence breaks a tie), but that’s risky.

    While Kavanaugh may be the safest choice, he may not be the best choice. Aaron Blake at WaPo explains why an Amy Barrett nomination would make sense to Trump:

    Amy Coney Barrett is thought to be one of the leading contenders and is almost surely one of the two women Trump has now said is on his shortlist ahead of the announcement of the pick July 9. She’s the one female candidate who was on pretty much everybody’s shortlist, in fact.

    And she checks a lot of boxes. Like his previous pick, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, she’s young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings. Unlike Gorsuch, of course, she’s a woman — a fact that could help mitigate the onslaught of questions about whether she would help overturn Roe v. Wade. Barrett is also from Indiana, which could apply pressure on its vulnerable Democratic senator, Joe Donnelly, to vote for her.”

    Liked by 1 person

  22. Yes, sadly, it is…… 🙄




  23. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/amy-coney-barrett-under-progressives-religiou-ignorance-bigotry-attack/


    If you ever need much evidence that the growing “God gap” in American politics fosters an immense amount of ignorance and occasionally outright bigotry, look no farther than the concern — the alarm, even — that Amy Coney Barrett is on President Trump’s short list to replace Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court.

    The alarm isn’t about her credentials. She’s checked every box of excellence — law review, appellate-court clerkship, Supreme Court clerkship (with Justice Scalia), elite law-firm experience, law professor at an elite law school, and now experience as a federal judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She’s a young, brilliant woman at the apex of her profession.

    So, beyond her obvious originalist judicial philosophy (shared to varying degrees by every person on Trump’s list of potential nominees), what’s the problem with Judge Barrett. Why do some progressives single her out for particular scorn?

    It turns out that she’s a faithful Christian who lives a Christian life very similar to the lives of millions upon millions of her fellow American believers.

    No, really, that’s the objection. …

    … Many years ago, before I was married, I belonged to a parachurch organization that enriched my life immeasurably. We prayed together, worshipped together, ate meals together, and even lived together. My two roommates were members of the same group. We often engaged in the same kinds of community outreach (e.g., many members volunteered for Big Brothers/Big Sisters). We held each other accountable, and when one member of the group strayed from biblical teaching, the leaders confronted him or her. We spoke the language of “covenant,” and we’ve maintained deep relationships to this very day.

    What was the name of this radical, scary group? The Harvard Law School Christian Fellowship.

    So when I read tweets like this, from law professor Richard Painter, I hope they’re the product of ignorance, not malice:

    … I don’t know Judge Barrett personally, but I know her by reputation. She’s widely acknowledged to be a brilliant law professor, and she’s a role model for Christian professionals who are committed to excellence in their careers and to loving Christ, their families, and their neighbors. If she’s deemed unfit for the Supreme Court, then the religious test is alive and well. …

    Liked by 1 person

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.