The Right Side of the News

*Raises a glass* On some level I understand the premise. I think most of us can recognize that the prosperity gospel teachers or the hustlers (Peter Popoff) are knowingly using a religion to line their pockets and could care less if they pilfer from the pockets of some sweet-natured 90 year old pensioner. If we're being honest, there is something especially disgusting with them. There is a difference, in my estimation, between these wolves in sheep's clothing when compared to a strict fundamentalist. The fundamentalist is not wrong in pointing to the scripture where Jesus said, "By their fruits you will recognize them," and how he discusses separating the wheat (real Christians) from the tares (false prophets). On some level I find legitimacy in that from a scriptural point of view and I can usually get a sense of sincerity. Many fundies are truly being sincere.... but we can all be sincerely wrong too.Where many fundamentalists seem to go horribly wrong is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy where their particular brand of Christianity is the only way in. It may be scripturally accurate to say but it doesn't say who is who... and given Jesus' own excoriation of the Chief Priests, Pharisees and Sadducees, tells me that his biggest problem was with the pomp of religiosity. He said "forgive them for they know not what they do" to the very people who executed them but had a scathing indictment against the scholars. That's saying a lot.Those who are the most certain of their salvation may very well be the one's most in danger of the damnation they gleefully wish for others. Bingo. I think Islam is a dangerous religion... but I don't think all Muslims are necessarily dangerous people because of it. I could level the exact same argument against Christianity -- particularly the Old Testament. Doesn't mean that every Xtian is a dangerous fanatic because of it. The reality is that there really is a lot of crossover between the two religions. My parents are "Christians" in the sense of some vague nostalgia... its been so interwoven between Americanism and The Church et al that, for them, to be an American is to be a Christian. But they don't read the bible and they aren't out there thumping people over the head. There are millions upon millions of Muslims who live the exact same lifestyle. Maybe they're Turks or Iranians who are fond of some of the things associated with Islam -- the least of which being martyrdom or violence. Maybe just as American children have fond memories of Sunday School do some moderate Muslims.For however dangerous many religions can be in the hands of the wrong people, it is equally dangerous to write off people only account of that. I believe that neither whitewashing Islam is the answer nor is condemning people solely based on it. If we make an enemy of Muslims based on the religion then we have unwittingly created a self-fulfilling prophecy for ourselves. We are turning once moderate people into hardcore fundamentalists.As to the Pensacola shooter.... he could have been radicalized... he could also have been an insane person losing his grip on reality. His motives are inconsequential compared to his actions. What I can state fairly categorically is that he is the one who made the conscious decision to do what he did, not an entire religion. I don't think Faith would like it if I blamed her for something David Koresh did. I hope she can offer the same perspective about others.

You obviously know absolutely nothing about it. They are so different I despair of trying to show you how. Mohammed got his religion from a demon in a cave, that incorporated bits and pieces of the Old and New Testaments and managed to completely confuse some of the people in bgoth with each other, Mary with Moses' sister Miriam for instance and I forget who else. Mohammed knew a little bit of the Bible and got it all twisted up. He was basically illiterate and one of his aunts considered him to be demon-possessed and she certainly got that right.Islam murders people who disagree with it, where in the Old Testament do you find any such thing? THINK carefully because it is not there,.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I alreqady said Muswlims don't all act on all the parts of their religion. I guesws I can'texpect you to read my posts backa page or two but you raelly should and I'm not up to repeating all that right now.

Muhammad got the Glorious Qur'an directly from the Arch-Angel Gabriel who was sent by God to try to correct the errors found in Judaism and Christianity.

Demonstrate how you know that. The Qur'an is an extension parts of the NT and OT, just as the NT is an extension of the OT, just as the Book of Mormon is an extension of the NT. The stories are intermingled because these false prophets wanted to add to it. I didn't say Mohammed wasn't a lunatic, I'm just saying he isn't so different from a guy who murdered an Egyptian, buried his corpse in sand dunes, and then came down off a mountain (by himself) with two carved stone tablets claiming that God carved them. If you can explain how that's less stupid I'm all ears. Islam doesn't murder anything. Some adherents of Islam murder people, just as some people, period, murder people. I don't have time to look up every instance of murder in the OT, but there's so much of it could fill a valley with a river of blood. I already provided one example. Moses, the progenitor of modern Judaism and the foundation of which Jesus referenced, was a murderer prone to fits of rage. Not to mention all the different ways Moses commanded people be killed -- like, well, stoning women to death. Does that sound familiar to you? It did to Mohammed. Sorry to tell you that its wasn't an original piece for Mohammed. It seems Moses beat him to the punch thousands of years earlier.Oh, and the women head covering thing in Islam? All a previous custom handed down to him. Its even in the New Testament. How many Christian women do you think observes that? So, Faith, do you wear a hijab or are you, as 1st Corinthians says, disgraceful?

Women covering their heads? In 1960 in Arkansas, at least, grown Presbyterian or Methodist women didn’t even think of going to church without a head covering. And don’t even ask about wearing slacks! That would have been the very zenith of foul paganism!

We apparently have now evolved to the point that women care to wear clothing to church that invokes temptation among many men. I suppose that is their right. Not that God cares, surely.

A study of scripture, which I spent quite a time on some years ago, shows that women should be wearing a covering on our heads in church and it's wrong that it's been abandoned almost universally these days. Modest dress to avoid tempting men is also commanded in scripture but has also been abandoned. These violations must be bringing judgment on the churches, weakness in evangelism at least, probably contributing to the growing hatred of Christianity and the loss of youth from the churches, which would be a form of such judgment.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The White House is rejecting the subpoenas from the House because the whole impeachment undertaking is a sham, and it is also a violation of the separation o f powers. The House seems to think they can boss around the President instead of treating him as a check on their own powers. Their whole star chamber proceeding has completely left him out until the last minute and now they expect him to hop to their bidding. No, they are out of line. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The President seems to think he can boss the around the house instead of treating them as a check on his power.

And likewise The President seems to think he can boss around the House instead of treating them as a check on his own powers..The classic "checks and balances" philosophy that we were taught so unwillingly in the late 60's (for myself, that's the summer I learned to fall asleep standing up) should have taught us all too well.Each and every one of the three Branches of Government is supposed to be a check and balance imposed by the other two branches against that one branch.Yes, the Executive has ways to check the powers of the Legislative. But at the same time the Legislative has ways to check the powers of the Executive. Such as the oversight committee which Trump has been so fervently attempting to obstruct.Why are you ignoring those? The Congress has the duty to provide a check on the power of the President. Why are you complaining that they are trying to do their duty?

They are not doing any duty, they are abusing their power against the President and I don't see any way he is abusing his although they accuse him of it all the time. The impeachment is a huge sham just as the Mueller investigation was. Trump cooperated completely with that investigation by the way and has only now started to resist the witch hunt by refusing the Houses's usurpation of authority over him.And then there was the claiming of mere statements or innuendos as criminal obstruction of justice in the case of the Mueller investigation. which was nothing really but an illegal fishing expedition, and the acceptance of hearsay and opinion as legal testimony in the case of the impeachment. Never before has the nation been subject to such fraud, such corruption of justice and abuse of power as the Mueller investigation and now the House have been doing against Trump.This is the general gist of the truth I hope will come out in the end but unfortunately these shams are accepted as legitimate by so many it may not be possible. People who merely dislike Trump and impute crimes where there is nothing but a disliked personal style.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Confusing me with Mark Levin? Seems kinda strange. Which one of us do you like the most? At least he didn't call him a MF'er. But "parody"? It's actually more accurate to call it what it was, a lie. Schiff was trying to mislead - he wasn't considering the possibility that Trump just might release the transcripts of the actual phone call. When Trump did that, it laid bare Schiff's lie. Schiff made a clumsy attempt to do what he often sees the news media do for Democrats, and it backfired on him. The news media has been very impressive in their attempts to cover it up. That is my contention, it's no different than your obvious contention that once 24 hours has gone by, Trump's responses to news media hate are off limits. Well if I could afford it, I could hire a dozen or so people to monitor different segments of the mainstream media in a 24 hour period. (while I'm at work of course) They could each cover different channels and radio stations, we could then tabulate all the results with links, and see how it all measures up to your 49. Let's see, this would include the "reports" of *Anderson Cooper, *Don Lemon, Wolf Blitzer, Jim Acosta, Brian Stelter, Jake Tapper, *Robin Roberts, *David Muir, George Stephanopoulos, Elizabeth Vargas, Jonathan Karl, Cecilia Vega, Tom Llamas, Martha Raddatz, Terry Moran, Lester Holt, *Rachal Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnel, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews, Alison Camerota, etc. Did I leave anyone out? Oh yes, the entire editorial boards of the NY Times, the Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe, many other liberal rags.(the asterisk in front of some names indicates a gay one) Did I just get all these names from lists, without knowing anything about them? Oh no, I left a lot of names out, I only included the ones that I have specifically seen do Trump put-downs with my own eyes, many of them quoted on Fox News.But alas, I can't hire anyone. So you can claim a 49 to 1 victory if you like, but I still don't see what impact Trump's insults have on the peace and prosperity that we're experiencing during his presidency. And I can see far more harm to our society by such biased mainstream news reporting.And it's clear to me that anti-Trump bias is about more than just hate, I think all the high level Democrats and the mainstream media are chasing a big fat carrot. If Michael Bloomberg can pledge $100 million in anti Trump ads, what is to stop George Soros from offering that much or more to any person or group who he would consider most influential in getting Trump removed from office before his first term is up? With possibly a somewhat lessor amount to any Democrat who could beat him in 2020. They all look to me like they are chasing the money.I caught ABC World News Tonight with *David Muir each evening this week. I think it was Monday, Trump was described as "furious", as he calmly spoke about what he thought of Schiff, or something similar. The next night he was described as "lashing out", for a similar, matter-of-fact statement. Then, Thursday evening, both Joe Biden's and Edith-Bunker Pelosi's meltdowns were reported on. But Pelosi's DON'T MESS WITH ME!!!! tirade wasn't described as "furious" or "lashing out". She just "fired back" according to *Muir. Same with Biden, who said YOU'RE A DAMN LIAR to an elderly man who was, admittedly, being somewhat hostile while asking about his son Hunter. This guy was just a member of the general public, it's not exactly presidential, probably the first time in history a presidential candidate used a 4 letter word while describing to his face one member of the general public. But Biden got pretty much a free pass on it, and of course it's forgotten in the following evening's newscast. While descriptions of "furious" and "lashing out" against Trump often go on several evenings in a row, for only one event.If you think Trump's responses to this ridiculous impeachment stunt are more damaging to the country than *Muir's fake news alone, then we just have to leave our disagreement there.

what does that have to do with anything?Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Thanks for this. We see this stuff every day and I rarely get it together to report on it. It's probably the essence of fake news, using false words to create a false impression of Trump's behavior and character. Depicting him as emotionally erupting is typical. Every time I check these things out he's cool as a cucumber. This is how media hate-based lying works and I guess most people just take it at face value. You'd think they'd be disgusted with themselves for this kind of subterfuge, but I guess as good leftists they think the ends, discrediting Trump, justify the means.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.