Deleting God in Congress – Breaking a 243 Year Tradition

One nation under god, divisible by demoncrats… Trump is not the one dividing this nation, it’s characters like Nadler!

This entry was posted in Political Intrigue, politics, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to Deleting God in Congress – Breaking a 243 Year Tradition

  1. Peggy says:

    Democrats have been trying to remove God from every aspect of our lives since the 1960s, at least. We could once be proud and feel safe in our nation established under and by the grace of God, but no more. Christians, Jews and members of any faith are being attacked for having any faith at all by a political party that wants to gain control over every aspect of life including income, health and who you worship.

    Remember this?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8BwqzzqcDs

    • Chris says:

      Democrats have been trying to remove God from every aspect of our lives since the 1960s, at least.

      Bull. We try and stop you from going to church? From passing your religion on to your children?

      A non-dishonest statement would be that the Democrats have been trying to remove references to God from government operations…which is a fair thing to do.

      What political ideology conflates government operations with every aspect of our lives? Whatever it is, don’t call it conservatism and don’t claim it’s about small government.

      We could once be proud and feel safe in our nation established under and by the grace of God, but no more.

      You’re mad because not everyone believes that we were established under and by the grace of God, because not everyone believes in God. You are mad that you cannot force those beliefs on others with the force of the government. I’ll alert the whambulance.

      . Christians, Jews and members of any faith are being attacked for having any faith at all by a political party that wants to gain control over every aspect of life including income, health and who you worship.

      More lies, and again I’ll remind you that the president you now support campaigned on disallowing all members of one religion from immigrating to this country. People in your party have fought against the construction of mosques, not just near Ground Zero, but all over this country. Democrats have not fought to stop the construction of churches or synagogues. You cannot claim to be the party of religious tolerance when want you really want is religious dominance.

    • Cherokee Jack says:

      Peggy, quit worrying about God being evicted. Our new age society has figured how to fill the gap left in our lives. (I was going to say “souls,” instead of “lives” but I think God is keeping our souls with him.)
      In the old days, we used God to remind us to treat one another with respect, and to remind us that if we don’t, we could pay the price in our afterlives. Even non-believers often got the idea, and went along with the program.
      Now we’re too smart to believe that stuff. If we need spiritual guidance, we’ve got Dr. Phil and the entire psychiatric community to show us how to cope. Very often we’re brought to the realization that it’s not our fault, we were born that way, and we’re really OK. If we’re not good looking enough or educated past the third grade, we’ve got Jerry Springer to pick up where Dr. Phil left off.

      And speaking of education, now that we’ve managed to convince God we don’t need him in our schools, students are getting their minds right with the help of the properly cloned teaching staff. (See Chris, above.)
      Now that God’s had his congressional pass revoked, they can get down to some serious enacting. They can quit pretending that special interest money doesn’t really affect how our taxes are spent.
      So relax, Peggy. Don’t fight it. It’ll be OK. Honest. I swear to God.

  2. Chris says:

    Wow, what a snowflake.

    The OAN host, not Nadler.

    Not every American has a “core belief in God,” and one should not have to affirm such a belief in order to make a legal oath. That’s part of our tradition in this country as well. It is not “divisive” to respect that as a matter of choice, unless one requires every American to unify behind their own religious beliefs in order to consider them equal Americans.

    • Chris says:

      One more thing…Trump suggested banning all members of one religion from immigrating to this country, and spread numerous lies about that religion (thousands cheering 9/11 in New Jersey, for instance). If you think Nadler is a bigger threat to religious liberty than Trump, what you care about is not actually religious liberty, but religious dominance.

      • Peggy says:

        FYI – No he didn’t and the Supreme Court agreed with him. Still hoping for the day you grow up and quit lying.

        Supreme Court Decision Upholding Trump’s Travel Ban

        “The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Trump’s travel ban by a 5-4 vote.

        In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the ban was “squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA,” referring to the Immigration and Nationality Act.”

    • Post Scripts says:

      Chris, the video simply reminds us that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Some of those principles are carved in stone above the entrance to the Supreme Court. Some are expressed within the US Constitution. Hey, “In God We Trust” is printed on our currency as is Masonic symbolism. The Christian religion is in the Constitution. In fact, the United States Constitution contains a direct reference to Jesus. Consider the wording of a sentence from Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it….” Whoa, “Sundays excepted”…Why is that Chris? It’s done out of respect for our Christian tradition and heritage.

      Now back to the oath, “so help me God,” this phrase is again, pure tradition!!! Its not threatening anyone – it doesn’t deprive anyone of anything. However, we choose to say it to show respect to an integral part of our Christian history. Of course an atheist need not say the word God if it offends his values, in fact nobody is forced to say that which runs against their values or religious teachings. Even Christians need not feel compelled to take an oath ending with “so help me God.” This is because the Bible gives us an out, read Matthew 5:33. Matthew 5:33 says you shouldn’t swear an oath using God’s name and it explains why. I think James 5:12 says basically the same thing. (I find that really ironic.)

      Bottom line is I still defend keeping our oath the way it is for the same reasons I defend the retention of Confederate statues and symbolism on certain State flags. It’s a reminder of our history and our heritage. Surely we can agree that history is important for a host of reasons, but for me the one that really stands out is, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Santayana So, you better remember what formed this country and why… and never miss a chance to remind our citizens of that as we slip into the grips of socialism.

      • Chris says:

        Jack, if the saying “so help me God” doesn’t actually mean what it says, and is just symbolism for the sake of tradition, then it isn’t worth saying, and it shouldn’t make anyone angry if it isn’t said.

        “In fact, the United States Constitution contains a direct reference to Jesus.”

        No, it does not. The excerpt you provided certainly isn’t a “direct reference to Jesus;” it is, at best, an indirect reference to the religious practices of most people at the time.

        And again, I would have a lot more respect for the arguments of conservatives concerned about “an assault on religious liberty” if they extended that concern toward religious minorities in America who are actually suffering the most from such an assault.

        • Post Scripts says:

          Hi Chris, I think you will find the Constitution does make reference to Jesus. Please read this very credible essay by
          Dave Miller, Ph.D.

          Those who insist that America was not intended to be a “Christian nation” point to the obvious absence of specific directives regarding Christianity in the federal Constitution. The popular propaganda since the 1960s has been that “the irreligious Framers did not want the nation to retain any attachment to the Christian religion.” Such an assertion is a monstrous perversion of historical fact. The truth of the matter is that they were fearful of the potential interference by the federal government in its ability to place restrictions on the free exercise of the Christian religion. Consequently, they desired that the specifics of religion be left up to the discretion of the several states.
          Nevertheless, we must not think for a moment that the federal Framers did not sanction the nation’s intimate affiliation with Christianity, or that they attempted to keep religion out of the Constitution. On the contrary, the Christian religion is inherently assumed and implicitly present in the Constitution. In fact, the United States Constitution contains a direct reference to Jesus Christ! Consider three proofs for these contentions (See Constitution of the United…, 1789).
          First, consider the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” We have been told that, by “establishment of religion,” the Framers meant for the government to maintain complete religious neutrality and that pluralism ought to prevail, i.e., that all religions (whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism), though equally tolerated, must not be given any acknowledgement in the public sector. But such an outlandish claim is absolutely false. All one has to do is to go directly to the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the First Amendment in order to ascertain the context and original intent of the final wording (Annals of Congress, 1789, pp. 440ff.). The facts of the matter are that by their use of the term “religion,” the Framers had in mind the several Protestant denominations. Their concern was to prevent any single Christian denomination from being elevated above the others and made the State religion—a circumstance that the Founders had endured under British rule when the Anglican Church was the state religion of the thirteen colonies. They further sought to leave the individual States free to make their own determinations with regard to religious (i.e., Christian) matters (cf. Story, 1833, 3.1873:730-731). The “Father of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason, actually proposed the following wording for the First Amendment, which demonstrates the context of their wording:
          [A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).
          By “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Framers intended to convey that the federal government was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian religion—the very thing that the courts have been doing since the 1960s.
          Second, consider the wording of a sentence from Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it….” “Sundays excepted”? The government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, the Constitution would have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitution would have read “Fridays excepted.” If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any one religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundays excepted”—proving conclusively that America was Christian in its orientation and that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview and gave political recognition to and accommodation of that fact.
          Third, if these two allusions to Christianity are not enough, consider yet another. Immediately after Article VII, the Constitution closes with the following words:
          Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth….
          Did you catch it? Their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words “anno Domini,” meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multi-cultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religionless designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era (see “Common Era,” 2008). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or Native Americans!
          Let’s get this straight: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history. So, according to the thinking of the ACLU and a host of liberal educators, politicians, and judges, the Constitution is—unconstitutional! Go figure.
          REFERENCES
          Annals of Congress (1789), “Amendments to the Constitution,” June 8, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&rec Num=221.
          “Common Era” (2008), Encyclopædia Britannica Online, [On-line], URL: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/128268/Common-Era.
          Constitution of the United States (1789), [On-line], URL: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html.
          Rowland, Kate (1892), The Life of George Mason (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons).
          Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray, & Co.), [On-line], URL: http://www.constitution.org/js/js_344.htm.

          Tweet

          Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

          We are happy to grant permission for items in the “America’s Culture War” section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

          For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

          Apologetics Press
          230 Landmark Drive
          Montgomery, Alabama 36117
          U.S.A.
          Phone (334) 272-8558

          http://www.apologeticspress.org

          • Peggy says:

            Excellent Jack!

          • Post Scripts says:

            Thanks Peggy!

          • Chris says:

            Dear God, Jack…

            Apologetics Press, the Montgomery, Ala.-based church organization that has waged a quarter-century battle against atheism and the theory of evolution, has fired its longtime director, Bert Thompson, amid allegations of sexual misconduct.

            https://christianchronicle.org/longtime-director-of-apologetics-press-fired/

            This is who you say is “very credible?” It took me ten seconds to find this. So no thank you, I won’t waste my time reading his thoughts on this subject.

          • Post Scripts says:

            Okay Chris, so if I read you right, you’re taking a moral stand against reading anything from my sourced material and you therefore discredit anything coming from this organization because of their alleged misconduct? That is highly commendable, however I would like to point out their alleged moral infraction was limited to one person…their director and he was fired for the alleged sexual misconduct way back in 2005.

            Seems like this action (firing the offender) is wholly in keeping with your high standards, right? Also, he was not the author of the article I referenced.

            If the article is too long for you to read, I can excerpt the relevant points, if you wish?

            I found the article very credible, as did others, regarding the core issue that direct linkage to Jesus was in our revered document, the U.S. Constitution. Further, the article in question had direct quotes from said Constitution and also cited supporting sources too. I thought you would have enjoyed that factual rebuttal? It’s a shame you won’t read it, because how else will you ever expand your perspective on our Christian history? It’s not like I am asking you to read Mein Kompf. Please advise if you would read just the summary?

          • Post Scripts says:

            By the way Chris, I found it mildly amusing that you opened with “Dear God, Jack…”

          • Chris says:

            Jack, I’ve got a head cold at the moment and misread the article I posted—I thought it said that the author of that article you posted was the harasser.

            But it’s still a ridiculous organization that fights against teaching evolution in schools. It’s clearly about establishing Christian supremacy, not freedom of religion, and thus I will not engage with its interpretation of the Constitution.

          • Peggy says:

            Dear Jack, you’re wasting your time with Chris. He’s refused to read anything, many of us have provided for him, that doesn’t fit his demented mind. He’s as brainwashed as the Hitler loving youth were. He doesn’t want to know the truth for fear he’d have to admit he was wrong.

          • Chris says:

            *sigh*

            Fine, I read it.

            It still does not support the author’s contention that there is a direct reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution. There are, as I said before, indirect references.

            That does not change my original points in this thread in the slightest: citizens should not have to reference God in any oath before a government agency, and leaving out that part of the oath should bother no one who is secure in their faith.

            And this part of that article is extremely troubling:

            The facts of the matter are that by their use of the term “religion,” the Framers had in mind the several Protestant denominations. Their concern was to prevent any single Christian denomination from being elevated above the others and made the State religion—a circumstance that the Founders had endured under British rule when the Anglican Church was the state religion of the thirteen colonies. They further sought to leave the individual States free to make their own determinations with regard to religious (i.e., Christian) matters (cf. Story, 1833, 3.1873:730-731). The “Father of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason, actually proposed the following wording for the First Amendment, which demonstrates the context of their wording:
            [A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).
            By “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Framers intended to convey that the federal government was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian religion—the very thing that the courts have been doing since the 1960s.

            The author seems to be implying that the Founders only intended the First Amendment right to religious freedom to apply to Christians. (The fact that the wording was changed to not explicitly reference Christians doesn’t seem to phase this author much.) This argument has been made by Christian revisionist historians such as David Barton.

            While I could not find evidence that Apologetics Press has argued that the first amendment only applies to Christians, this article makes the organization’s Christian supremacist views very clear by calling it “tragic” that there are non-Christians in Congress:

            https://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1999

            So while I don’t take issue with the facts about the indirect references to Christianity in the Constitution, I do take issue with the conclusions drawn from those facts. And your argument would have been stronger had you simply quoted the parts of the Constitution and made your argument rather than relying on a clearly bigoted organization that makes my point about the desire for supremacy–rather than freedom–for me.

  3. Chris says:

    Also, “demoncrats?” Grow up. Child.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Democrats v demoncrats,lol… this honestly was a typo, possibly due to a subconscious brain reflex? However, I thought it was funny so I left it. Reminded me of re-pugs that Libby finds funny and uses all the time. I take it as nothing personal, just a little political poking.

      • Chris says:

        I don’t approve of that either and Libby knows it. And no, literally demonizing your political opponents isn’t “poking.” It actively makes our country a worse place.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          Re Chris: I don’t approve of that either and Libby knows it. And no, literally demonizing your political opponents isn’t “poking.” It actively makes our country a worse place.

          Which is PRECISELY what you do, Chris. Amazing. You are completely blind and in denial of you own behavior which you exhibit in these pages nearly every time you make a comment. Good Lord, are you a piece of work or what?

          Such abject hypocrisy and denial is also your trademark.

          I am beginning to think someone should seriously consider b***h slapping you into self-awareness. Maybe your father, or better yet, a student or perhaps a teacher peer of yours. But I know not even that would work on a hopeless case case such as yours. Carry on.

    • Joe says:

      Also, “demoncrats?” Grow up. Child.

      You misspelled Demonrats. HTH.

  4. Pie Guevara says:

    Re Demonic Chris: “I do not call my political opponents demons.”

    Now you have me laughing out loud. True, I cannot recall you ever calling anyone a demon, you just demonize everyone and anyone who disagrees with your half-baked social justice warrior demagoguery. Ad hominem and demonization is your forte! You would be completely lost without it!

    Chris, you are such a ridiculous, oblivious, hypocritical turd tosser troll you, of course, cannot even admit to it. So it goes. Just another day in the life of Chr(P)iss.

    By the way, Demoncrats is precisely what you and your ilk are. Of course, Rats works too. Kavanaugh. Up yours. 😀

    • J Soden says:

      Well said, Pie! Chris like to dish it out but can’t take it.

    • Peggy says:

      This applies to a teacher too.

      “Why do actors — people whose main talent is faking emotions — think that their opinions should be directing the course of political events in the real world? Yet it is a mistake that they have been making as far back as John Wilkes Booth.” – Thomas Sowell

  5. Peggy says:

    No comment needed.

    Intellectual Poverty on the Left:
    Arrogance is no substitute for intellectual humility.

    “You may have noticed that conservatives are blessed with an impressive lineup of intellectual heavyweights. Liberals have none, literally none. A few of those on the conservative side are Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, Dennis Prager, Shelby Steele, Jordon Peterson, and Mark Levin.

    You cannot name a single liberal who has anything approaching the above credentials or intellectual output. Why? There are a number of reasons.

    Liberalism is fundamentally about feelings rather than thoughts. Also the left focuses on intentions, the right focuses on results and the ways by which results are achieved.

    An advantage of making intentions your goal is that once you choose and announce them, you’re done. No need to follow up to see if your intentions were realized. No need to consider second or third order effects.

    Leftism is about force, conservatism is about freedom and voluntary exchange. The use of force needs no theory or ideology. Anyone willing to rely on force to accomplish his or her objectives doesn’t really need to understand how the world works.

    The mindset of the writers listed above reflects what is written in Ecclesiastes, “And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven… and I gave my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly.”

    The foremost source of the left’s intellectual poverty is arrogance. Arrogance kills curiosity. Those on the left feel they already know all they need to know. They have nothing left to learn or to bother thinking deeply about. Ironically, they feel intellectually superior to conservatives.

    A prerequisite for being a serious thinker is curiosity. It requires being curious about how things work — society, the economy, human nature, for example. Curiosity is the incentive for doing the hard work of study and serious thought.

    The left also feels morally superior to any of our predecessors. Conservatives, on the other hand, possess a deep respect and reverence for the wisdom we’ve inherited from, for example, the Greeks, the Bible, Shakespeare, and the Founding Fathers.”

    https://spectator.org/intellectual-poverty-on-the-left/

    • Chris says:

      “You may have noticed that conservatives are blessed with an impressive lineup of intellectual heavyweights. Liberals have none, literally none. A few of those on the conservative side are Thomas Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, Dennis Prager, Shelby Steele, Jordon Peterson, and Mark Levin.

      You cannot name a single liberal who has anything approaching the above credentials or intellectual output. Why? There are a number of reasons.

      This is the funniest thing I have ever read.

      (Also, I am offended on behalf of Thomas Sowell that you would lump him in with those idiots.)

      • Peggy says:

        Chris: (Also, I am offended on behalf of Thomas Sowell that you would lump him in with those idiots.)

        I didn’t you idiot, the author did.

        • Chris says:

          And you agreed with the author, because you have zero critical thinking skills and no sense of cognitive dissonance. Which is it, Peggy? Are liberals over-educated elitist intellectuals or do we not have the “credentials” of the collection of YouTube grifters name-checked in that article? You can’t have it both ways. Well, you can. But thinking people can’t. We went from having a Harvard law professor as president to a guy who thinks noise from wind turbines cause cancer. But sure, your side is the intellectual one. Tell me another.

          • Post Scripts says:

            Chris, Most people know Trump was joking about windmill noise…he exaggerated for comedic purposes at the RNC. His speaking style makes him a target for the left all the time. Trumps mouth is his worst enemy, next to democrats. https://www.newsweek.com/windmillscausecancer-best-tweets-mock-trumps-statement-1386542

          • Peggy says:

            Chris, being educated and being smart don’t always go hand and hand. You display what an educated idiot you are with every post here on PS.

          • Chris says:

            Jack, this is literally the first time I’ve seen someone claim that Trump was joking when he said noise from windmills cause cancer. What exactly was the joke? Can you explain it? Was this a joke too, from the article you posted?

            “Let’s put up some windmills. When the wind doesn’t blow, just turn off the television darling, please. There’s no wind, please turn off the television quickly.”

            The simplest explanation is that the president is just an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about…why can’t we agree on that? If these are jokes, he really doesn’t seem to know how humor works.

            Saying he has an unusual “speaking style” is too kind, especially when you savage people on the left when they misspeak. I mean, Trump and Giuliani spent last week mocking Nancy Pelosi for the way she spoke in one speech, even tweeting out doctored and misleadingly edited videos of her. But in one of those tweets Giuliani came off as even more drunk and incoherent then she did, including the nonsense word “ivessapology.” These two have no business critiquing anyone’s speaking style, but their fans ate up their critiques like candy. The hypocrisy bothers me. Republicans would not and should not tolerate Democrats speaking the way Trump speaks on a daily basis; imagine if Obama had celebrated a foreign dictator talking smack about a Republican rival? Trump has so lowered the standard for what is expected of a politician, and disgraced the office with so many of his stupid and hateful comments.

          • Post Scripts says:

            Chris, just heard it said again today on Rush Limbaugh’s program. Rush said Trump has a very dry sense of humor which is often misinterpreted by the left, sometimes deliberately so. I kinda have to agree with ol Rushie on this one. The base of his humor (and most humor) is in its absurdity or his sarcasm. I’m not defending Trump for being a bad comedian, I’m just saying not to take Trump too literally when he says things like a windmill noise might cause cancer. If he really believed that I would say there is your impeachable offense…he would be nuts. Have a nice Memorial Day.

          • Chris says:

            Peggy, the article specifically references their “credentials and intellectual output.” If that doesn’t refer to education, what is it referring to?

          • Chris says:

            “If he really believed that I would say there is your impeachable offense…he would be nuts.“

            I’d say I’d hold you to this, but how would one prove whether he believes it or not? You’ll just say he’s joking or exaggerating any time he makes a wild claim like this, like when he said unemployment could be over 40% under Obama, or he saw video of thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey, or that the government can punish SNL for making fun of him, or he was “wiretapped” by Obama, or Ted Cruz’s dad may have helped kill JFK, or Saudi Arabia didn’t really kill that journalist, or Putin didn’t really know anything about the DNC hacking…Trump says a LOT of things that not only aren’t true, but aren’t even remotely plausible by a rational person. How do you determine what’s a lie, what’s a genuine false belief, and what’s hyperbole or a “joke?” His record is so bad there’s literally no way of distinguishing, and he might not even be able to tell which is which anymore.

            What matters is that the president has no concept of truth and no ability to distinguish between accurate or inaccurate information. Just this weekend he said he believes KJU over his own people…this is dangerous and irresponsible. The commander-in-chief needs to be able to distinguish between good and bad information and Trump has no ability to do so. That alone is impeachable.

          • Chris says:

            Case in point:

            https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-birthday-forget-voting-form-family-ivanka-melania-jared-new-york-mayor-election-a8106681.html

            This story about Trump getting his own birthday wrong is two years old. A month ago he claimed his father, who was born in New York, was born in Germany. Is this dementia or was he lying? Does it matter? The president has no capacity for truth and no conception of reality. Get him out of there. Republicans should demand his resignation.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Democrats are such weenies, especially atheist Democrats. (Well, when you get right down too it, most atheists are weenies.) I guess these Rats in the video never heard of “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

    The notion that to swear to tell the truth so help you God is a “religious test” is total baloney and asinine.

    Because of it being mentioned in Post scripts I have been watching OAN live streaming lately. It it a pretty good news channel. That Chris seeks to ridicule, belittle, smear and bash OAN only serves to make it that much more attractive. Chris is a demagogic, extreme left-wing scum whose nasty, snark filled comments should be — and are from what I can see — taken with a grain of salt. The turd-tossing troll-boy is a self-defeating idiot.

    You can stream OAN live here — http://guide66.info/one-america-news-network/
    or here — https://www.livenewsnow.com/american/one-america-news.html

    If you use Firefox or Google Chrome you can use the add-ons uMatrix, NoScript or possibly ScriptSafe to get rid of the annoying pop-up video ads. (I am currently using uMatrix and have never tested ScriptSafe.)

    Everyone calls uMatrix YOU-Matrix but it is actually MEW-Matrix (or Micro-Matrix) which stands for the Greek letter mu which stands for micro in the CGS and MKS systems.

    uMatrix is very effective but it has a learning curve and is a bit confusing. You will have to check out the video tutorials on YouTube to get a handle on it. NoScript is more intuitive. NoScript and uMatix are frustrating for general web surfing so I just disable whichever one I am using if I am doing a bunch of searches.

    By the way, I highly recommend Cookie Quick Manager and eCleaner for Firefox.

    1) IMPORTANT: Be sure to select “Always open Cookie Quick Manager in new tab” in the options section otherwise you may inadvertently wreck your Firefox profile.

    2) ALWAYS back up your Firefox or Chrome profile BEFORE installing any add-os. That way if something goes wrong, you can simply restore the old profile.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *