I am a Bible believing Christian and a Baptist by denomination. It is my belief that those who have been saved, who have accepted Jesus Christ as our Savior, the door of heaven will most assuredly not be closed as you have described. This is an excellent explanation from my favorite site.

https://www.gotquestions.blog/once-saved-always-saved.html


Once saved always saved?

For some, once saved always saved is one of the most powerful and meaningful doctrines of the Christian faith. For others, once saved always saved is a damnable heresy, straight from the lips of Satan. Why is there such a great divide?

For starters, there are biblical texts that seem to argue for once saved always saved (John 10:28-29; Romans 8:38-39; Ephesians 4:3), and there are biblical texts that seem to argue against once saved always saved (Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26). So, biblical interpretation is definitely part of the debate. Secondly, there are the theological systems of Calvinism and Arminianism, with "perseverance of the saints" being a core truth within Calvinism and "conditional security" being a core belief of most Arminians. Firmly held biblical and theological beliefs are a major part of the once saved always saved debate.

In my experience answering questions for GotQuestions.org, though, the biblical and theological arguments are not the reason once saved always saved is usually opposed. It always seems to come back to the issue of: "If once saved always saved is true, we can live our lives any way we want to." So, in reality, most who reject once saved always saved do so for a practical reason: how can we teach people to stop sinning if they remain saved no matter what they do? According to this line of thought, hellfire and eternal damnation are the only threats powerful enough to get people to stop sinning.

To answer the question, "If once saved always saved is true, does that mean we can live our lives any way we want to?", my answer is a qualified "yes." The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is so absolutely perfect and sufficient that it did indeed pay the penalty for all of our sins. Christ's death paid for the sins we committed before we received Him as Savior, and Christ's death equally pays for the sins we commit after we receive Him as Savior.

However, I would also say that a person who has truly received Jesus Christ as Savior will not live his/her life any way he/she wants. When you understand the depravity of your sin, the eternal penalty you have earned, and the tremendous price Jesus paid, it is a transformational experience. When you receive salvation, you are a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), all things have become new. Once saved always saved is not a license to sin. Rather, it is an understanding that we could not earn salvation on our own merit, and therefore, nothing we can do will cause us to lose the salvation God has purchased with the blood of Christ.

Once saved always saved is the realization that God's plan of salvation is absolutely perfect. A person whom God has chosen for salvation cannot be unsaved, unredeemed, unreconciled, unforgiven, lost, forsaken, abandoned, or cast out. Good works and obedience cannot earn salvation, and neither can a lack thereof result in the loss of salvation. The biblical truth of once saved always saved puts the focus of salvation where it should be—on the holy and omnipotent God who finishes what He starts (Jude 24).

What do ya know…….I used google and this is what I found! You keep pointing your finger at us while ignoring the monster that we kicked out!


By Jennifer Rosenberg
Updated on December 31, 2018
Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq from 1979 until 2003, gained international notoriety for torturing and murdering thousands of his people. Hussein believed he ruled with an iron fist to keep his country, divided by ethnicity and religion, intact. However, his actions bespeak a tyrannical despot who stopped at nothing to punish those who opposed him.


On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity in regards to the reprisal against Dujail. After an unsuccessful appeal, Hussein was hanged on December 30, 2006.

Though prosecutors had hundreds of crimes to choose from, these are some of Hussein's most heinous.

Reprisal Against Dujail
On July 8, 1982, Saddam Hussein was visiting the town of Dujail (50 miles north of Baghdad) when a group of Dawa militants shot at his motorcade. In reprisal for this assassination attempt, the entire town was punished. More than 140 fighting-age men were apprehended and never heard from again.

Approximately 1,500 other townspeople, including children, were rounded up and taken to prison, where many were tortured. After a year or more in prison, many were exiled to a southern desert camp. The town itself was destroyed; houses were bulldozed, and orchards were demolished.

Though Saddam's reprisal against Dujail is considered one of his lesser-known crimes, it was chosen as the first crime for which he was tried.

Anfal Campaign
Officially from February 23 to September 6, 1988 (but often thought to extend from March 1987 to May 1989), Saddam Hussein's regime carried out the Anfal (Arabic for "spoils") campaign against the large Kurdish population in northern Iraq. The purpose of the campaign was to reassert Iraqi control over the area; however, the real goal was to eliminate the Kurdish people permanently.


The campaign consisted of eight stages of assault, where up to 200,000 Iraqi troops attacked the area, rounded up civilians, and razed villages. Once rounded up, the civilians were divided into two groups: men from ages of about 13 to 70 and women, children, and elderly men.

The men were then shot and buried in mass graves. The women, children, and elderly were taken to relocation camps where conditions were deplorable. In a few areas, especially areas that put up even a little resistance, everyone was killed.

Hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled the area, yet it is estimated that up to 182,000 were killed during the Anfal campaign. Many people consider the Anfal campaign an attempt at genocide.


Chemical Weapons Against Kurds
As early as April 1987, the Iraqis used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq during the Anfal campaign. It is estimated that chemical weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages, with the largest of these attacks occurring on March 16, 1988, against the Kurdish town of Halabja.

Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988, and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation.

Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.

Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hassan al-Majid was directly in charge of the chemical attacks against the Kurds, earning him the epithet, "Chemical Ali."

Invasion of Kuwait
On August 2, 1990, Iraqi troops invaded the country of Kuwait. The invasion was induced by oil and a large war debt that Iraq owed Kuwait. The six-week Persian Gulf War pushed Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in 1991.

As the Iraqi troops retreated, they were ordered to light oil wells on fire. Over 700 oil wells were lit, burning over one billion barrels of oil and releasing dangerous pollutants into the air. Oil pipelines were also opened, releasing 10 million barrels of oil into the Gulf and tainting many water sources.

The fires and the oil spill created a huge environmental disaster.

Shiite Uprising and the Marsh Arabs
At the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, southern Shiites and northern Kurds rebelled against Hussein's regime. In retaliation, Iraq brutally suppressed the uprising, killing thousands of Shiites in southern Iraq.

As supposed punishment for supporting the Shiite rebellion in 1991, Saddam Hussein's regime killed thousands of Marsh Arabs, bulldozed their villages, and systematically ruined their way of life.

The Marsh Arabs had lived for thousands of years in the marshlands located in southern Iraq until Iraq built a network of canals, dikes, and dams to divert water away from the marshes. The Marsh Arabs were forced to flee the area, their way of life decimated.

By 2002, satellite images showed only 7 to 10 percent of the marshlands left. Saddam Hussein is blamed for creating an environmental disaster.

“America doesn’t go after targets that can fight back…..”

There it is! What’s your required quota for today?

Hussein forced men to stay in the holes without enough food and water……….YES, They were begging for food and water! When our troops got there they were more than happy to be rescued! They didn’t have to be asked to surrender! Hussein was a monster to his own people. What I shared came from a diary from a very young man, my son, who had never witnessed death up close and personal, not someone’s ideology and derogatory opinion of America. It was his personal account of their march toward Baghdad. Many times our military was met by Iraqi men with their hands up waving anything white…….it was a rescue for these poor men!

There are so many personal stories by our military. Stories that people like you will never understand because everything you know comes from a book, opinions of others and their ideology. You see the world through YOUR ideology, there is so much more!

You have a habit of adding your spin of what another person writes. I suggest you actually comment on exactly what they say, for a change! 😉

CD seems to be becoming more obsessed with critiquing America every day!

He’s sounds more like the Trump haters waking up posting on this forum and ending his day on this forum with derogatory American posts! LOL!

Well, he certainly opened the door for it! I found this interesting article while researching Xi…….Nothing like rewriting history to fit a leaders agenda!

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20211109-china-s-xi-jinping-rewrites-history-to-secure-his-political-future

The leaders of the Chinese Communist Party gather this week to ratify a resolution on the ruling party’s “great achievements”, a move that will likely allow President Xi Jinping to secure an unprecedented third term and overturn the party’s last historical resolution, passed during the Deng Xiaoping era.

Xi Jinping is looking to rewrite history. At a four-day conference of the Communist Party’s powerful Central Committee that began on Monday, delegates are set to cement Xi’s status as one of China’s greats.

Around 400 top members of the regime are meeting behind closed doors to discuss the text of a resolution that has not been released to the public. The document is likely to be a "reinterpretation of some recent events in Chinese history”, explained Marc Lanteigne, a China specialist at the Arctic University of Norway, in an interview with FRANCE 24.

A political gathering to discuss the historical record might sound esoteric, but China scholars say the real-world stakes of the November 8-11 conference cannot be overstated.

"It’s an extremely important document because it will be only the third time in the party’s 100-year history that a Chinese leader has allowed himself to publish such a resolution," said Olivia Cheung, from the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), in an interview with FRANCE 24.

In the footsteps of Mao and Deng

Before Xi, only two Chinese leaders – Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping – dared venture into rewriting the historical record.

Mao, the founder of Communist China, used resolutions as a political weapon in 1945 to criticise the past actions of his opponents – who were already under arrest.

The resolution solidified Mao’s absolute authority over the party.

Almost four decades later, in 1981, Deng Xiaoping dared to criticise the Cultural Revolution Mao unleashed between 1966 and 1976. In coming to terms with a ruinous chapter – which crippled the economy, led to millions of deaths and destroyed thousands more lives – Deng laid the foundations for his political and economic reforms.

The revisions of the party’s traditional orthodoxy profoundly marked the Chinese political and social landscape over the next few decades. Analysts say this week’s resolution is likely to have similar significance.

Xi’s latest move comes as no surprise to China scholars. His political – and historical – ambitions were already made clear at a 2017 party congress, when Xi had his "ideas" inscribed in the party statutes alongside those of Mao and Deng, and again at the Communist Party’s centennial celebrations in July.

Elevating himself to the same stature as icons of the past has become something of an obsession for China’s current president. Xi wants to create a Holy Trinity of Chinese leaders, allowing him to establish an ideological filiation between himself and the two other great political figures in the history of Communist China. "Thus, there will now be a first political era – that of Mao Zedong’s revolution – followed by Deng Xiaoping’s second era of reforms. Xi Jinping would embody the third era, that of the consolidation of the regime," explained Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a renowned China specialist at Hong Kong Baptist University, in a 2017 interview with FRANCE 24.

A history course for personal ambitions

But the resolution is not solely aimed at cementing Xi’s place in the political history of the country. It would also serve the Chinese president’s future plans "by giving legitimacy to his ambition to have a third mandate", explained Lanteigne.

This is a politically sensitive issue in China. Xi is expected to ask the next Party Congress, in 2022, to let him continue to lead the country beyond the two five-year terms that have been the norm since Deng’s historical course correction.

One of the key points of the 1981 resolution, dubbed the “de-Maofication” resolution, was to limit presidential terms to prevent the development of a personality cult similar to the one established by Mao.

This has become an ideological headache for Xi, who can hardly praise the merits of his illustrious predecessor while going against Deng’s reforms by running for a third term.

"It is thus likely that Xi Jinping's historical resolution will revisit the history of Deng Xiaoping's reign by minimising the importance of elements that could undermine his ambition to continue to rule," said Cheung.

It’s also likely that Xi’s history lesson will present certain recent events – such as the confrontation with the US or the Covid-19 crisis – in a threatening light to sell the idea "that it would not be the right time to change direction at the risk of letting power struggles weaken the party", said Lanteigne.

Against ‘historical nihilism’

The new resolution should also be an opportunity for Xi to anchor his new political mantra – "common prosperity" – in the historical record, according to Lanteigne.

China’s recent economic history revolves around growth at all costs, even if it means increasing inequality. In some ways it is the opposite of the concept of "common prosperity", which is based on more controlled growth accompanied by a more equitable sharing of wealth.

The party’s third historical resolution "will try to show that the party has always had common prosperity as a priority, to give the impression that Xi Jinping is part of the continuity of Chinese political history and not a break with it", said Lanteigne.

Finally, the new resolution must also become a shield against what Xi perceives as "one of the main threats to the party: 'historical nihilism'", explained Lanteigne.

Early in his first term, Xi declared war on “historical nihilism”, which he defined as any attempt to challenge the official narrative of significant past events. Since its inception, the Communist Party has censored "incorrect" versions of history, but neither Mao nor Deng used the term as frequently or ardently as China's current leader.

The third historical resolution to emerge after this week’s meeting will define the way history is taught in China, analysts say.

My sons experience was his experience and all those young men and women involved in Iraq, as I stated.

A source would help, Peewee!

“It certainly wasn’t the entire Iraqi population…..or even a majority…”. All these type of comments with no source to back them up……..just your opinion! You are the Professor of Generalizations and opinions stated as facts! LOL!

What does this have to do with Ukraine and Russia………absolutely nothing! Just another comment carefully woven into your conversations to make your quota for the day of derogatory comments about American history, past and present!

How the hell do you know what percent of the population were cheering of our relieving their country of Hussein? Were you there? Were you one of the men and women that rolled into Iraq? That were met by Iraqi forces that come out with their hands up, begging for food and water. Many were not fighting by choice, they were forced by just another murdering dictator! My son was one of those soldiers…….he was with a unit of Army Multiple Launch Rocket System or MLRS, or as they referred to it….Steel Rain. Some of the “liberated” Iraqi men did not even have guns! All they wanted was to go home to their families, without Saddam Hussein in power!

Your constant drawing the US into every conversation, always derogatory, is extremely tiring and very evident of your Anti-American agenda. We are aware of our history, both good and bad! Stick with whatever point you’re trying to make by providing a source and stop with your “America Bad” history lessons! 😉

China is the picture of verifiable discrimination against those with black skin…….! 👿

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/05/china-covid-19-discrimination-against-africans


New York) – The Chinese government should end the discriminatory treatment of Africans related to the Covid-19 pandemic, Human Rights Watch said today. Authorities should also protect Africans and people of African descent throughout China from discrimination in employment, housing, and other realms.

In early April 2020, Chinese authorities in the southern city of Guangzhou, Guangdong province, which has China’s largest African community, began a campaign to forcibly test Africans for the coronavirus, and ordered them to self-isolate or to quarantine in designated hotels. Landlords then evicted African residents, forcing many to sleep on the street, and hotels, shops, and restaurants refused African customers. Other foreign groups have generally not been subjected to similar treatment.

“Chinese authorities claim ‘zero tolerance’ for discrimination, but what they are doing to Africans in Guangzhou is a textbook case of just that,” said Yaqiu Wang, China researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Beijing should immediately investigate and hold accountable all officials and others responsible for discriminatory treatment.”

On April 12, Guangdong authorities announced that all foreigners in the province must accept “Covid-19 prevention and containment measures” including “testing, sampling and quarantine.” In practice, the authorities just targeted Africans for forced testing and quarantine. They visited homes of African residents, testing them on the spot or instructing them to take a test at a hospital. Some were ordered to self-isolate at home with surveillance cameras or alarms installed outside of their apartments.

There was no evident scientific basis for the policy. Most imported cases of Covid-19 to the province were Chinese nationals returning from abroad. Many Africans had already tested negative for coronavirus, had no recent travel history, or had not been in contact with known Covid-19 patients.

Elsewhere in China, some Africans reported police and local officials had harassed them, and hospitals and restaurants turned them away.

The Chinese government denied discriminating against Africans in Guangzhou, saying that it “reject[s] differential treatment” and has “zero tolerance for discrimination.” Chinese state media also ran stories seeking to refute criticism that Chinese authorities had mistreated African nationals and blamed “Western media” for “provok[ing] the problems between China and African countries.”

Official figures show that about 14,000 African nationals live in Guangzhou, but researchers estimate thousands more are there without documentation. Because of virus-related mistreatment, many Africans in China have urged their governments to call on the Chinese government to cease all forms of discrimination against Africans, and some want their governments to evacuate them from China. The Kenyan government announced it would fly out Kenyans stranded in China on May 1.

Reports of discrimination against Africans in China sparked outrage among African communities around the world, Human Rights Watch said. Several African governments, including Nigeria, Uganda, and Ghana, summoned Chinese ambassadors in their countries to protest. Ambassadors from several African countries in China wrote to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, calling for the Chinese government to cease “forceful testing, quarantine and other inhuman treatment meted out to Africans.”

More than 300 human rights groups and nearly 1,800 activists in Africa sent an open letter to the African Union calling for “immediate remedial action” over the “xenophobic, racist and inhumane treatment of Africans in China.”

In the past two decades, China has become Africa’s most important economic partner. China’s investment in Africa through the Belt and Road Initiative, the country’s trillion-dollar investment in infrastructure stretching across some 70 countries, has boosted Africa’s economy, but also lent the Chinese government considerable influence on the continent. African governments have rarely criticized Chinese authorities for mistreatment of Africans in China, or for human rights violations against people across China.

Africans in China have long experienced racial discrimination. Police frequently target Africans, often linked on Chinese social media with violent crimes and overstaying their visas, for immigration enforcement. Some job advertisements specifically exclude “heiren,” or blacks, or set a lower salary for African applicants. Some Africans report being paid less than their white colleagues for the same job. Many also said they have experienced of being turned away by taxis, restaurants, or shops. In 2018, a sketch aired during the annual Lunar New Year Gala on state TV featured a Chinese actress in blackface saying things such as “China has done so much for Africa,” and “I love Chinese people! I love China!” A Chinese laundry detergent brand advertisement showed a black man being pushed into a washing machine, getting “cleaned,” and emerging as a lighter skinned Asian.

“African governments together should unequivocally call on the Chinese government to cease all discrimination against Africans in China, and carry out prompt and transparent investigations to hold to account all those responsible for discriminatory practices,” said Carine Kaneza Nantulya, Africa advocacy director at Human Rights Watch. “African governments should also press China to enforce measures to prevent discrimination in the future.”

Do you not understand what a question mark means? Of course she read the article, that’s why she asked the question! Duh! What discrimination? Where is the proof that it even exists? I’ve never seen any of this in the workplace.

Well, he was a Republican! I think he would have respected Trump for his love of America and for what he accomplished in his four years in the White House. Would he have been his friend? Possibly! LOL!

My favorite scene of Wayne’s that was used more than once in his movies………He faces his opponent and says, “I’m not going to $&#@*, no I’m not going to #$&+@,………….THE HELL, I’m not”……….Wayne then decks the guy and the fight is on!…………”Where da whiskey, where da whiskey” 🤗…….from the great movie with Maureen O’Hara…..McClintoc!

I think John would relate that scene to Trump! IMO.

You are so desperate to find something relevant to discuss……..but alas, this is all you can come up with because you are so obsessed with hating Trump and Republicans! I found something for you to read that is interesting and fun to read! I wouldn’t quote it……I don’t know how factual it is! 😂😂😂😂

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/10/27/sexual-fantasies-republicans-democrats-politics-221919/

In this political environment, it’s easy to look at Republicans and Democrats as having next to nothing in common. Regardless of the issue at hand, we see them as wanting completely different things—especially when it comes to issues of sex and sexuality.

From differences in the way they have approached the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to their views on abortion and same-sex marriage, Democrats and Republicans appear worlds apart.

It’s not just their public policy positions that seem to differ wildly, though.

According to the largest and most comprehensive survey of sexual fantasies ever conducted in the United States, it would appear that there are also political differences in our private sexual fantasies.

I surveyed 4,175 adult Americans from all 50 states about what turns them on and published the findings in a book entitled Tell Me What You Want. As part of this survey, participants were given a list of hundreds of different people, places and things that might be a turn-on. For each one, they reported on how frequently they fantasized about it.

I learned a lot about the nature of sexual desire in modern America, but one of the more intriguing things I uncovered was the political divide in our fantasy worlds.

While self-identified Republicans and self-identified Democrats reported fantasizing with the same average frequency—several times per week—I found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to fantasize about a range of activities that involve sex outside of marriage. Think things like infidelity, orgies and partner swapping, from 1970s-style “key parties” to modern-day forms of swinging. Republicans also reported more fantasies with voyeuristic themes, including visiting strip clubs and practicing something known as “cuckolding,” which involves watching one’s partner have sex with someone else.

Why do Republicans seem to be drawn to non-monogamy and Democrats to power play in their sexual fantasies?
By contrast, self-identified Democrats were more likely than Republicans to fantasize about almost the entire spectrum of BDSM activities, from bondage to spanking to dominance-submission play. The largest Democrat-Republican divide on the BDSM spectrum was in masochism, which involves deriving pleasure from the experience of pain.

Why is that? Why do Republicans seem to be drawn to nonmonogamy and Democrats to power play in their sexual fantasies?

On the surface, it might be tempting to see this as revealing a fundamental difference in their sexual psychology. However, if you dig a little deeper, you’ll find that while some of the activities that turn Republicans and Democrats on appear vastly different, the underlying processes that drive our sexual fantasies may actually be the same. There’s far more that unites us than divides us when it comes to sexual desire.

What connects Republicans and Democrats, I believe, is that their fantasies are at least partly driven by what they can’t have. As I argue in Tell Me What You Want, the supersized sexual appeal that nonmonogamous and voyeuristic acts hold for Republicans likely stems from the fact that sex outside of marriage and multipartner sex are huge no-nos in a political party that continues to make “traditional marriage” one of the cornerstones of its official platform and regularly funnels federal funds toward abstinence-only sex education. Nothing makes us want to try something like being told you can’t do it. This is why taboos, no matter what they are, often become turn-ons.

This same instinct may also help to explain, in part, the appeal of BDSM to Democrats. Within the Democratic Party, much of what drives the political agenda is the view that inequality is the source of a wide range of social problems. This is regularly seen in the party platform, which recently made multiple mentions of the need to “level the playing field.” It’s not a stretch, then, to suggest that playing with power differentials—especially in BDSM settings, where women and men might not appear to be on equal footing and where the lines of sexual consent might not always be explicit—is taboo in many Democratic circles.

The appeal of the taboo stems from a long-standing principle of psychology known as reactance—which stipulates that when our freedom is threatened and we’re told we can’t do something, we want to do it even more. Many a parent has discovered this principle and used it to their benefit in shaping their children’s behavior through reverse psychology: Frame the desired act as something your child isn’t allowed to do and you just might get what you want.

To be sure, sexual fantasies have complex origins. They aren’t just a product of our political affiliation and what we’re told we can’t or shouldn’t do—there are myriad other factors that contribute to why we develop the turn-ons that we do. But my research suggests that politics certainly seems to play some role.

It’s also worth noting that, while the popularity of nonmonogamy and BDSM fantasies differ by political orientation, the rest of what we want—including specific sexual activities, partners and settings—is strikingly similar.

Whether we identify as Republican, Democrat, independent or something else, we’re not just turned on by taboos, but also by trying new and different things in general. For example, it’s human nature to be titillated by novelty, mixing up what we do, where we do it and whom we do it with. Most of us seek to meet a range of psychological needs in our fantasies, too, such as feeling desired, validated and competent. And the vast majority of us are fantasizing about our current romantic partners far more than we’re fantasizing about Hollywood celebrities, porn stars and politicians.

Incidentally, just about 1 in 10 Republicans and 1 in 10 Democrats reported ever having fantasized about a politician before. Among those who did, it’s worth noting that these fantasies sometimes involved reaching across the aisle, if you catch my drift. When presented with a list of 25 politicians, made up of 11 prominent Democrats and 14 prominent Republicans (as well as a write-in option, in case one’s preferred politician wasn’t represented), 17 percent of Republicans reported fantasizing about Democrats, while 27 pecent of Democrats reported fantasizing about Republicans.

(Woody, I think you’ll have to agree that this proves that apparently Republicans are more appealing, sexier, prettier, more handsome, etc. etc. etc.……You get the point!) 😉😎🤗

Interestingly, the single most commonly fantasized-about politician among both parties was the same: Sarah Palin (though Republicans were much more likely to have Palin fantasies than Democrats).

Following Palin, the next most frequently mentioned politicians in Republicans’ fantasies were John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Nikki Haley. While, after Palin, Democrats fantasized about Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

(Someone had a fantasy of Hillary!!?🤢………must be that devil worshiping thing that I’ve read about……😂😂😂 LOL!)

So, in this increasingly polarized political season, we should all take a moment to remember there’s at least one area where we’re more alike than we are different. If only Congress could be as bipartisan as we are in our sexual fantasies.

And in China, your fellow countrymen are getting what they DID NOT vote for! I can’t even imagine what the children are going through being separated from their parents! 👿
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.axios.com/shanghai-china-covid-lockdowns-1a3c4bb0-c76d-4a60-bf35-f997dd880ad6.html

What's happening: Shanghai residents across the city are scrambling for food, as empty grocery shelves, unreliable government provisions, and strained food delivery services make it hard to secure enough to eat.

Extreme lockdown conditions and censorship mean journalists can't easily report from the ground, so many Shanghai residents have turned to social media for support, posting photos of their few remaining vegetables and videos of residents demanding that local health authorities allow them to leave their building to look for food.

It’s the first time in my life I’ve had to worry about securing food,” the Financial Times quoted one Shanghai-based executive as saying. “Now, I’m worried we’ll run out of milk for our kids.”
One video posted to Chinese social media platform Weibo showed a drone flying through a Shanghai residential neighborhood, broadcasting to residents to remain in their homes.

Shanghai authorities have also forced children who have tested positive to quarantine separately from their parents if they test negative, a policy that has come under harsh scrutiny after parents spoke out about its devastating consequences.

One seven year old boy was forced to quarantine away from his mother for one month after they traveled to Shanghai, and has had nightmares ever since, the boy's mother told NPR.
"Some of the toddlers quarantined with [my son] lost the ability to speak. Another friend's 6-month-old came out with his legs covered in scratches, graffiti on his hands and open sores," she said.

What they're saying: "China's medical system would risk a collapse leading to enormous loss of life if it gives up on epidemic prevention and control," Chinese state news agency Xinhua said.

Between the lines: No matter where they happen, COVID lockdowns may be ineptly implemented, causing major disruptions. But under current conditions in China, politics may be an additional obstacle to a more humane response.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has signaled that the country must continue its zero-COVID policy, meaning local authorities feel intense pressure to eliminate COVID outbreaks no matter the cost. And it's politically difficult for Xi to admit error and change course, since later this year he will be making a bid to assume a highly unusual third term in office.

There it is………Big Bad AMERICA! 😂😂😂😂