WH inciting war?

Like the NAZIS did with the radio station in Poland --- Did it ever occur to you that the tanker attacks are a ruse to justify attacks on Iran?

This will have the right wing in ashes and sack cloth.

While I get a lot of stuff in the email which shows no origin..

this came from a Quora post and the author is backed up by a religious scholar..

I do not know enough to post it, but sound a ring of truth to me..

A study shows that most Orthodox Christians and Catholics vote Democratic. How can a Christian vote Democratic?

David Reynolds, studied at Nunawading High School
Answered Jun 6 · Upvoted by Alberto Valenzuela, MA Religion, Loma Linda University (1987)

I think that this is going to be an unpalatable answer for you.

There is a fair degree of biblical evidence that people who vote Republican are not actually Christians, and well might be the ones damned to Hell.

I know that’s a very confrontational thing to say, but let me see if I can justify it scripturally.

Jesus spoke often about the poor, and about how we treat them. He also spoke a number of times about the perils of being rich. Republicans are the antichrist of those two issues. If you want a government that reflects Christianity, these two things must be front and centre.

The two “Christian” platforms that Republicans cling to, are abortion and homosexuality. Jesus did not speak of these at all.

So we ignore what He did speak of, and place emphasis on something He never spoke of. A thinking person should ask why.

Now, to the salvation aspect. A born again Christian places their trust in a salvation based primarily on the texts of the “Romans Road”- “For all have sinned…”, “The wages of sin is death”, “If we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus Christ…” Romans 3:23, 6:23, 10:9&10. etc. Effectively, I pray a prayer and “believe and repent” and I’m let off the hook.

It’s worth noting that these are letters written by a former pharisee named Paul who never met Jesus in the flesh, and these are letters to a church in Rome, not to us. But born again Christians will bank their eternal salvation on this.

However, Jesus gave his own salvation message. Out of His own mouth. There are a number, but these are my favourite three…with particular emphasis on the last:

Matt 19:24: “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

Luke 16: 19–31. Lazarus and the rich man.

And may all time favourite. Matt 25: 31–46. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats.

Two interesting things about this last one:

a) Jesus is very clear that if you don’t care for the poor (the least of these), you’re going to eternal punishment. It doesn’t seem to matter what prayer you prayed.

b) the “goats”, those who are going to Hell, are surprised, and are calling Him “Lord”. Therefore, they thought they were Christians, but were not. Think about it in the context of your question,

Finally, the logical follow up questions should be, “how did so many people get suckered?” And “why do evangelical churches place so much emphasis on letters to an ancient church by a former pharisee, while effectively ignoring the very words of Jesus…their actual founder?”

The only answer I can see is, that it’s an easier sell. Scripture warns us about charlatans like this, and that many will be deceived. It’s not just the salesman’s fault, the buyer needs to be responsible too. Read the words of Jesus again, and rethink your question.

I apologise for the very confrontational nature of this answer, and wish you well in your journey.

This is the Big Freaking Deal

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said there’s not much room for interpretation when it comes to President Donald Trump’s claim that he’d “listen” if a foreign power offered dirt on a political rival.

“He would be committing a felony,” Napolitano told host Shepard Smith on Thursday.
Trump this week said “there’s nothing wrong with listening” to dirt on an opponent, no matter what the source.

“They have information,” he said in an ABC interview. “I think I’d take it.”

Napolitano said that would be a crime, and there’s “no wiggle room” as the Federal Election Commission has in previous cases decided that opposition research is considered a “thing of value.”
  
Under the law, a candidate can’t receive anything of value from a foreign national related to a U.S. election.

And that means Trump would be committing a crime.

“The president of the United States of America is prepared to commit a felony to get reelected,” he said. “That was my reaction, and it was not a happy one.”

Napolitano also said that whoever gives the president that info would also be committing a felony.

What is a Patriot?

That is a troubling and highly complex question. If we want to see patriotism as a good thing, than we have to see that all patriotism, even that of our enemies or any others, as equally good. This is the book definition of Patriotism: "the quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one's country." Yet "devotion and vigorous support" means what? Or the simple definition of patriotism as "love of country" means what?

Patriotism is to me a sham; it does not come close to truth on the matter. Samuel Johnson said that it was the last refuge of the scoundrel, yet Boswell, his biographical commentator, gave no context. Let me provide one, my own.

Basically, there is absolutely no need for patriotism. America has ideals and principles and values that we honor and protect. Why? Because if we have integrity those same ideals and principles and values reflect what we stand for as individuals. It is not a dedication to borders or a flag but to the heart and spirit of liberty. If America strayed from these things, as much as another country threatened them, we would be equally zealous, "devoted and vigorous," in rooting out the corrupting influence. This is something the Right does not seem to understand.

Patriotism appears to mean to the Right lock-step loyalty to Trump and abject hatred for the Left. This is what is so totally bad about patriotism. It has no parameters. Such thoughts as those are not for the country or its principles but for party or a man. The word patriotism or patriot should be forever banned as being anything more than a poor and shaky description of multiple and perhaps conflicting feelings regarding a nation.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

I might have missed them, what exactly did President Trump do that rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. These are the only basis for impeachment.

Good riddance, Sarah Sanders: Washington's worst communicator

What on earth was the point of Sarah Sanders?

For 94 days, the outgoing White House press secretary gave no press briefing in the press room just a few steps from the press office that she nominally ran.

But the press did not stop pressing.

For more than three years, Sanders made no meaningful news on behalf of a boss who considers it his presidential priority to make as much meaningless news as possible.

Yet the news did not stop breaking.

Related: 'It's astonishing': The demise of the daily White House press briefing
With all the resources of the federal government’s communications machine at her fingertips, Sanders was the least resourceful communicator in Washington: a hapless and hopeless observer to every crisis, real or manufactured by the man sitting in the Oval Office, just down the hallway from her own.

In other words, she was the perfect spokeswoman for a perfectly lazy president.

Sanders may have demonstrated few obvious qualities as a press secretary: she earned no trust from the media, possessed no information to share with the world and enjoyed no grasp of policy or even politics.
She had no special insights into Donald Trump’s thinking and no special relationship with him either. Other than this: her capacity to dodge responsibility and the truth were a polished mirror of his character.

Normal spokespeople would have been mortified by the revelations of Robert Mueller that, by Sanders’ own admission, she just made stuff up when she briefed the press.

Speaking the day after the president fired then FBI director James Comey, Sanders told the media that “countless members of the FBI” – representing what she called “the rank-and-file of the FBI” – had lost confidence in Comey. She claimed that this was the reason why Comey was fired, even though Trump himself would later tell NBC News that his decision was because of “this Russia thing”.

Sanders later admitted to Mueller that she fabricated the entire smear. “She also recalled that her statement in a separate press interview that rank-and-file FBI agents had lost confidence in Comey was a comment she made ‘in the heat of the moment’ that was not founded on anything,” Mueller stated in his report.

But who really needs credibility, a sense of shame or any degree of self-respect when you’re working for Trump?

Speaking to Fox News after the Mueller report destroyed what was left of her reputation, Sanders worked her way through a few more fabrications. “Look, I acknowledged that I had a slip of the tongue when I used the word ‘countless’, but it’s not untrue,” she said.

That is some World Cup-quality lying. The single sentence includes at least three lies and there are only 21 words in it: an average of one lie for every seven words.

There was no acknowledgement of a slip of the tongue (lie No 1). It was no slip of the tongue (lie No 2). And she stands by the lie with the weasel words of a double negative about its non-untruthfulness (lie No 3 and quite possibly No 4).

You don’t get to lie as well as that by chance or amateur skill. It takes dedication and effort on the training ground to make it look so easy and natural.

A fitting role model? Not in my book!

Until now presidents acted with at least a modem of dignity.

Treason really unbelievable

So the smartest guy in the world went on tv and said if given the chance he would commit treason really, and he's still president.
And vice president pence knew flyn was a Russian agent even befor he was elected and he's still vice president. And not a peep out of the republican party or congress!

New York Democrats Introduce Bill to Legalize Prostitution

A new bill has been proposed by New York Democratic lawmakers to decriminalize prostitution in the state. The first of its kind in the U.S., this new legislation that was revealed Monday would also eliminate the prior records for most crimes related to sex work offenses.

The new bill, entitled the Stop Violence in the Sex Trades Act, was introduced by Senators Jessica Ramos and Julia Salazar, with the help of the sex worker advocacy group, Decrim NY. The bill was drafted in an effort to remove criminal penalties for sex workers, who are often the target of arrests and dangerous street violence.

“We want to bring sex workers out of the shadows and ensure that they are protected,” said Ramos. “We will finally make strides against trafficking by empowering sex workers to report violence against them. Sex work is work and everyone has an inherent right to a safe workplace.”

Currently, prostitution is not legal in the U.S., with the exception of only a few counties in the state of Nevada. The new bill would repeal and amend several statutes, and if it passes, it would then be legal to buy and sell sex, with special specific circumstances in N.Y. In addition, the bill would also regulate the “workplaces” where the prostitution takes place, to ensure safe working conditions for sex workers.

It would also mean that many misdemeanor charges related to prostitution would be repealed. Some of the charges would still remain though. Charges involving prostitution in a school zone, currently a misdemeanor offense, would remain illegal. Current laws that are related to sex trafficking and sexual offenses that involve minors would also remain unchanged by the new legislation.


Those who oppose the decriminalization of prostitution indicate that these efforts are misguided, and that full decriminalization of prostitution will create a demand that instead encourages underground sex trafficking. President of the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women, Sonia Ossorio, said the decriminalization of prostitution would create a brand-new industry that would give legitimacy to existing pimps and brothels.

“Pimps would now just be promoters,” said Ossorio. “You can’t protect the exploited by protecting the exploiters.”

Sanctuary for Families, a nonprofit advocate for sex trafficking victims headed by Alexi Meyers and Rebecca Zipkin, support most of the Decrim NY movement. They agree about the repeal of the loitering law and decriminalizing people in prostitution. They do not, however, agree with any law that decriminalizes the buying or selling of sex and promotes prostitution. In fact, they think that fully decriminalizing prostitution actually makes the conditions worse for sex workers.

“Most often it increases sex trafficking,” Zipkin said.” If you legalize, you are condoning brothels to become businesses and pimps to become business managers. That’s what we’ve seen around the world. The argument about safety is false.”

There is no indication that the bill will pass in the near future though, as Governor Cuomo has not endorsed the effort and the Democrat-led Senate and Assembly session is scheduled to end June 19. Advocates doubt the bill will be presented for a vote by this time.

If you could choose anyone to represent America as "a city upon a hill," who would it be?

Reagan was quoting Puritan John Winthrop's lecture "A Model of Christian Charity" delivered on March 21, 1630 when he spoke of America "as a city upon a hill, the eyes of all people are upon us." President Kennedy also spoke of our native exceptionalism in this way in a speech in 1961 and the phrase has been used repeatedly over the decades by many to declare our Constitutional existence as that endowed and blessed by the Creator.

Our representative needs to be the living personification of that vision, of our ideals, principles, values, and laws about liberty and a government by we the people as God granted to all. Not a perfect person, of course, yet one that consistently strives to personally incorporate those things in him- or herself and his or her actions in office. The matters of state may make this pedestal a difficult seat to hold. Yet always he or she will act for what best serves liberty and justice for ALL.

Remember, the eyes of ALL people will be upon him or her. So, name a candidate. Please give the reasons for your choice.