PeterS

Conservatism is an ideology built around affirmation instead of confirmation so Conservatives will only listen to new's that tells them what they want to hear instead of what is actually true. And commentary can be true but in the case of Fox New's if what they broadcast were true they would be off the air before the week was out.

As for PBS and NPR, I only point them out because they are the only ones who go beyond the call to be fair and balanced with their news and opinion. If conservatives are unable to see that then it's because of their bias and nothing else.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

I believe it was Beto who suggested that churches that don't accept gay marriage lose their tax exemption status...

Do you believe all churches are corrupt?

Doug61

I say vote out all the Republicans and Democrats, as well as the rinos out of office, If the can’t get along and pass legislation that helps this country’s problems, then get the hell out of that seat and lets put someone in it who will. The veterans, the homeless, the national debt( which has been caused by both rep and dem’s) has to be addressed not just put on the back burner

PeterS

There are few if any American's who don't recognize what a huge mistake invading Iraq was. Afganistan though, harbored the Taliban so if not for them they would not have been able to attack us on 911. Afganistan made themselves a legitimate target and I for one think we should keep a permanent force there until they are safely a democratic power--else they will simply make us a target once again.

Russia, on the other hand, had no reason to send troops to Syria nor take Crimea or attack Ukraine and the biggest mistake Obama made was to not sent them military weapons when they first needed them. Russia is our enemy and we need to treat them as such else they will walk all over us and there will be nothing, but our Nukes, to prevent them. Both Trump and Obama have let them walk over us and unless we can get a president to stand up to them they most certainly will in the future!

debeda

Well said, JW

debeda

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Think you meant the Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda... Yep... 17 Saudis and two Yemenis; with Osama found in Pakistan... Afghanistan definitely made itself a target...

I agree about Russia.. And both administrations to a degree...

I think that America has allowed public opinion to hamstring the political balls of the government...

The Afghanistan should be free to form their own nation... Not necessarily a democratic one...

More focus should be given to America.. Less to the affairs of others...

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

We have to have a tax exempt status with the IRS because we make NO money. There is money in the coffer but we have monthly bills to pay. Our electric bill during the 100 degree days was almost $1500. We also have water and sewage (separate bills here), and since we have a parking lot, we have a run off tax to pay. We also send money to our missionaries once a month because it's saves money on the transfer. The church has to have upkeep so there is money for those projects, but it gets spent. And we do have an emergency fund which we do use from time to time. There is NO profit in our church, but we still have to have that tax exempt number from the IRS or we get taxed.
The church won't shut down if we are taxed, we just won't have as much money to further the Lord's work.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Once again.... God bless...

tbutkovich

Russia took Crimea under Obama’s watch. Perhaps they should have used those blankets Obama gave them to tie them up to prevent them from seizing Crimea!

tbutkovich

God Bless You, your Church and your members!

tbutkovich

We know who they are, we must punish them at the voting booths!

tbutkovich

They get a nice stipend from George Soros so why would they listen to Trump.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"Where are we being taken?" - JW

It is from our globalist CFR NWO foreign policy.

Some Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Facts
The 3,000 seats of the CFR quickly filled with members of America's elite. Today, CFR members occupy key positions in government, the mass media, financial institutions, multinational corporations, the military, and the national security apparatus.
Since its inception, the CFR has served as an intermediary between high finance, big oil, corporate elitists and the U.S. government. The executive branch changes hands between Republican and Democratic administrations, but cabinet seats are always held by CFR members. It has been said by political commentators on the left and on the right that if you want to know what U.S. foreign policy will be next year, you should read Foreign Affairs this year.
The CFR's claim that "The Council has no affiliation with the U.S. government" is laughable. The justification for that statement is that funding comes from member dues, subscriptions to its Corporate Program, foundation grants, and so forth. All this really means is that the U.S. government does not exert any control over the CFR via the purse strings.
Since 1940, every U.S. secretary of state (except for Gov. James Byrnes of South Carolina, the sole exception) has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and/or its younger brother, the Trilateral Commission. Also since 1940, every secretary of war and every secretary of defense has been a CFR member. During most of its existence, the Central Intelligence Agency has been headed by CFR members, beginning with CFR founding member Allen Dulles. Virtually every key U.S. national security and foreign policy adviser has been a CFR member for the past seventy years.
Almost all White House cabinet positions are occupied by CFR members. President Clinton, himself a member of the CFR, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Group, employs almost one hundred CFR members in his administration. Presidents come and go, but the CFR's power--and agenda--always remains.
The CFR's Shroud of Secrecy - On its web page, the CFR boasts that its magazine, Foreign Affairs, "is acclaimed for its analysis of recent international developments and for its forecasts of emerging trends." It's not much of a challenge to do so, though, when you play a part in determining what those emerging trends will be.
So are they predicting trends or creating them? The answer is fairly obvious to anyone who has earnestly reflected on the matter.
The CFR fancies itself to represent a diverse range cultural and political interests, but its members are predominantly wealthy males, and their policies reflect their elitist biases. The CFR attempts to maintain the charade of diversity via its Non-Attribution Rule, which allows members to engage in "a free, frank, and open exchange of ideas" without fear of having any of their statements attributed in public. The flip side of this, obviously, is a dark cloud of secrecy which envelopes the CFR's activities.
CFR meetings are usually held in secret and are restricted to members and very select guests. All members are free to express themselves at meetings unrestrained, because the Non-Attribution Rule guarantees that "others will not attribute or characterize their statements in public media forums or knowingly transmit them to persons who will," according to the Council on Foreign Relations' 1992 Annual Report.
The report goes on to forbid any meeting participant "to publish a speaker's statement in attributed form in any newspaper; to repeat it on television or radio, or on a speaker's platform, or in a classroom; or to go beyond a memo of limited circulation."
The end result is that the only information the public has on the CFR is the information they release for public consumption, which should send up red flags for anyone who understands the immense effect that CFR directives have on America's foreign policy. The public knows what the CFR wants the public to know about the CFR, and nothing more. There is one hole in the fog of secrecy, however: a book entitled Tragedy and Hope, written by an "insider" named Dr. Carroll Quigley, mentor of Bill Clinton.
Google: “Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral, Commission, Bilderberg Group”

starman722

I agree with you 100%. In fact, i have theorized that if we were to cut off ALL supportive payments to every nation and have them submit a request funding as a new applicant, we could then qualify each nation as a friend and supporter of our Nation. We then make an agreement as to what each party will do and, if they do not uphold their end of the bargin, cut them off and wait for another round of application. They must QUALIFY for the funds.