Have you seen the most recent episode of the Howdy Rudy Show? Within two minutes, Rudy Giuliani told Chris Cuomo of CNN that he didn't ask Ukranian officials to investigate the Bidens — and that he did ask them to investigate the Biden, and he's proud of it.

He also said in a later interview with Fox that he was meeting with Ukranian officials at the request of our state department and then that he was there as the president's lawyer. I wonder how that works?

Maybe the quick snap backs by Giuliani are because he represents a client who's sincerely ignorant and enthusiastically stupid; who refuses to use the established inter-agency process for important national security decisions, preferring to use his own "stable genius" with "unmatched wisdom." His most recent product of his "unmatched wisdom" is the current Syrian debacle leading to displacement of hundreds of thousands of Kurds and the killing and wounding of their women and children.

He continues to play checkers while the rest of the world plays chess. Scary.

Jerome Bourgeois

League City

Locations

Recommended for you

(145) comments

Carlos Ponce

Much ado about an interview that happened almost a month ago (Sept. 20). Chris Cuomo asked Rudy Giuliani if he asked the Ukrainians about Joe and Hunter Biden. The answer was "no" the question was about Ukraine's interference in the 2016 election but the answer the Ukrainians gave transitioned into one involving Joe and Hunter Biden.

"Did you to ask the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?

No, actually I didn’t. I asked the Ukraine to investigate the allegations that there was interference in the election of 2016 by the Ukrainians for the benefit of Hillary Clinton, for which they were already.....

You never asked anything about Hunter Biden. You never asked anything about Joe Biden.

The only thing I asked about Joe Biden is to get to the bottom of how it was that it was Lutsenko who was appointed, dismissed the case against....

So, you did ask Ukraine to look into Joe Biden.

Of course I did.

You just said you didn’t.

No, I didn’t ask him to look into Joe Biden. I asked him. I asked about the allegations that related to my client, which tangentially involved Joe Biden in a massive bribery scrutiny, not unlike what he did in China."

Jim Forsythe

The businessmen, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, are accused of helping Giuliani dig for dirt on Joe Biden, and were arrested by the feds in New York on charges they funneled foreign cash to Republican politicians to advance their interests and those of a Ukrainian official who wanted then-US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch fired.

The pair are accused of sending funds to a congressman they hoped would help oust Ms Yovanovitch, in addition to charges of conspiracy and falsifying records, and were arrested at a Washington airport in possession of one-way tickets out of the country.

Ms Yovanovitch defied a government-wide ban by Mr Trump to testify in front of House impeachment investigators, claiming that Mr Trump had personally pressured the State Department to remove her from her position as ambassador.

Carlos Ponce

"claiming that Mr Trump had personally pressured the State Department to remove her from her position as ambassador" SO WHAT? Many presidents have recalled many ambassadors in the past. Only because Trump did it, does it make recalling ambassadors wrong? It is within his authority. Was Marie Yovanovich fired? No. She was just reassigned.

Jim Forsythe

Lev Parnas’ track record is punctuated with alleged death threats and partnerships with fraudsters.

In 2010, Parnas solicited a $350,000 bridge loan from an investor for the financing of a movie, “Anatomy of an Assassin,” that never got made, and then failed to pay the money back, according to court records. By 2016, a judge had awarded a $500,000 judgment against Parnas

Parnas and his alleged co-conspirator Igor Fruman were working with Giuliani, who was photographed with Parnas at former President George H.W. Bush’s funeral at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C. last December.

When Trump mounted his run for president, Parnas had no problem entering the future president’s inner circle. He attended fundraisers for Trump in Florida and the campaign’s election night victory party in New York. A photo posted on Facebook days after the January 2017 inauguration by Republican mega-donor John Catsimatidis shows Parnas at a gala in a tuxedo, standing just feet from Trump, Catsimatidis and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

In a since-deleted Facebook post from last May, Parnas published a photo of himself with Trump, tagging the location as the White House, and captioned it “incredible dinner and even better conversation,” according to an investigation published this summer.

Bailey Jones

"stable genius", "unmatched wisdom" -- don't forget "brilliant strategy".

As much as I dislike Trump personally, and everything he represents, I sincerely hope his head doesn't explode before the election.

Carlos Ponce

Why would his head explode? He's enjoying watching the Democrats implode.

Bill Broussard

When everything is said and spun, photo’s of Russian troops protecting the evacuation routs for our soldiers to run out of Syria is a big first in my life and pretty much says it all about our current foreign policy. Who would have ever thought our world would boil down to 1200 well trained and disciplined United States troops with the best and most modern equipment developing bone spurs instead of might and right



Oddities are amusing and the cast of quirky criminal hanger-ons marching in a straight line from the Oval Office to federal prison something to be stunned over. But in most every photo I recall in my years here, they have been our boys marching toward the front and not having communists escort us to safety

David Hardee

Taking issue with any individual or collective action by the President or Congress is a simple minded effort to justify your conclusion. There is a systemic issue gripping and distorting our entire political process and creating public chaos.

The political CIVIL WAR has been brewing for the last 60 years. It is erupting now because the country is in equal division on 1. Populous big city versus mid America, 2. Progressive liberals verses conservative and 3. Shocking results of the 2016 election. Trump is the catalyst – no he cause.

It’s difficult to determine why people have a dislike for a specific politician. If it is a philosophical dislike that is understandable. If your dislike is because you consider Trump either unqualified or illegitimate then your dislike should be placed on the process and people that voted him into office. He is our elected President and the process of governance should move on as usual. There will be a next election and that is where you can express your dislike.

I have a dislike for the repugnant tone in the political and media environment. I find astounding the amount of animosity that resulted from the election of president Trump. The immediate calling for his impeachment created the adversity and repugnant tone. The continuous assault mounted against president Trump’s every action by the Democratic Congress resulted in paralyzing the functions of gov’t.

Personally I would prefer a more genteel and respective rhetoric between the Congress and our president and would prefer a more balanced representation from the fourth estate. Considering the adverse conditions that Trump found as president it is understandable that eventually he would adopt an adverse attitude.

It is my opinion that the conduct of Trump is appropriate in the face of total obstruction. For those who find his rhetoric offensive please imagine walking a mile in his shoes.

Vote wisely!

Emile Pope

Let's see...I'm sure there was no upheaval when Barack Obama was elected President right? Immediate attacks upon him and his qualifications, accusations of him not being a citizen? Wonder who continued those? Appeals to the Supreme Court to disqualify him from being President? Attacks on his wife and children along with the rise of hate groups? The Republican in Congress making an agreement to oppose everything President Obama proposes on inauguration night? Refusing to grant a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee for the first time in American history? And you have the nerve to talk about animosity and continuous assault of a President??? Spare us your hypocrisy...

David Hardee

Emile – composing such a many word expression must have been exhausting – but you made a point. You evidently deluded yourself to believe I was comparing Obama (never mentioned) treatment with Trumps. To your delusion I with retort “Congress never brought forth any effort to impeach Obama”. That is a monumental difference! If you need to criticize or argue with my posted comment do so with attention to the context and content. You have a difficulty in comprehending (understanding) the context and constantly go off in a tangent that only expresses your biases.

Emile – you need help with word usage – I said nothing I don’t believe. Using hypocrisy (hypocrisy definition: 1. a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe,) was inappropriate. Try again – but charge me with an appropriate disparaging term.

Emile Pope

You take too long to say to little. Most of what you say is boring and all of it is false. And your president is a crook....

Carlos Ponce

Wait until he's re-elected, Emile.

David Hardee

Emile – Are you talking to me! Assuming this is what you are directing at me “You take too long to say to little. Most of what you say is boring and all of it is false. And your president is a crook....” this is my response. Emile, you are correct – I take a long time and a lot of effort to post for public review my published comments. I write, review, rewrite, critique for staying on subject and eventually relent and publish knowing that it is insufficient as being perfect. All that effort is in hope that the comment is respectful to the subject and reasonable in pursuit of making a point the consumer will consider in deliberation. The consumer may find it boring but definitely it is not “all of it is false.” Unfortunate that some consumers have allowed themselves to be so jaded they can no longer perform deliberation. The statement “your president is a crook” is denying Trump is your (Emile’s) president and the unproven claim from a Jaded mind. The decision that Trump is a crook will be decided in the verdict of the Senate. Yet to be accomplished – Impeachment - by the House is an indictment (charge) the trial and verdict have yet to be had.

Emile Pope

I rest my case...

Carlos Ponce

"I'm sure there was no upheaval when Barack Obama was elected President right? Right. Questioning his birth country started during the primary initiated by an Democrat opponent in 2008 named Hillary Clinton.

Carlos Ponce

Emile, check out this Politico article : "Birtherism: Where it all began"

https://www.politico.com/story/2011/04/birtherism-where-it-all-began-053563

"The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008."

Bill Broussard

"Personally I would prefer a more genteel and respective rhetoric between the Congress and our president and would prefer a more balanced representation from the fourth estate. "



I could not be more in line with that plea! Right on in all you said.



Having said that, i recall sitting next to my wife during the campaigns and listening to our President condemn and cast dispersions unlike anything I've heard before on the Media and Press starting very early on and said to her:"I think he is making a very poor choice here. I remember just how much the news had to do with getting the facts our about Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton and it did not go well for those folks. I cannot understand why he is provoking them so unnecessarily. This will not turn out well"

My comment to my wife was very early on in the campaign.

I've thought long and hard about this and I cannot find it in my heart to think that our Presidents attacks snd the press counter-surge since were one more problem of his own making.



Even though Roger Ales (CEO Fox News) swore to dedicate every resource to his election and did so, there was zero reason- with that kind of support- to go out of the way to attack the rest of the press long before they had turned against him.



As we speak, it would be very understandable that the President of Turkey meets our VP at the door, hands him a shredded letter and says "no talk-just take this back to Donald"

unfortunately, I think Mr. Putin is the undisputed winner of the past three years.

John E Sr. Macrini

Trump has never been a Politician. He is merely a multi-billionaire businessman with global interests and global knowledge. He has owned an airline, a football team, a university, manufacturing businesses, a real estate empire among countless other businesses. In several instances, he has filed bankruptcy for some of these failing endeavors in accordance with the law as outlined in US CFR. He, personally, has never filed for bankruptcy.

He has hosted Saturday Night Live twice, he has had his own reality show on NBC and knows intimately what the Democrats are all about. He doesn't need to get his money like an overwhelming segment of those in Congress do. The Liberal political and media environment hate Trump because he can expose what both are really about. Selling America out to Globalism; which in both environments, Liberal political and mainstream media will benefit with more power and money at the expense of the electorate and countless millions who have given their lives during the 19th and 20th centuries to save America, Europe and the rest of the world from totalitarianism. The current Congress is doing incredible harm to this country by refusal to follow the same laws, which many of them enacted during previous administrations, because of their desire for Trump to fail at the expense of the Nation ( as in Nationalism ). The internet, the Mainstream Media , Social Media and their minions have turned a great portion of the US Congress into a Clown College as they are more interested in seeing themselves as they fancy rather than being repugnant , much like Hollywood perceives fantasy over reality as factual. Trump's rhetoric is no more offensive than the majority of millennials and illegals ( marke nueve por SOB* lingua *South Of the Border" ) cannot speak in sentences without using expletives to make a sentence or express themselves. I wholeheartedly support David Hardee's opinion that the conduct of Trump is appropriate in the face of total obstruction. For those who find his rhetoric offensive please imagine walking a mile in his shoes.



Some will vote wisely, others will be led like swine to the trough ! Don't Kill The Golden Goose.

Anne Reiswerg

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...U.S. to hold next years G 7 summit at Trump Resort.

I gotta hand it to him for pulling that" very lucrative deal for the Trump family" off.

Jim Forsythe

The last time the United States hosted the G-8 it was held it at Camp David, a government-owned property in Maryland. The White House says it has chosen Donald Trump’s golf resort, which is a bad idea for many reasons. It looks like a blatant corruption, self-dealing, and foreign emoluments concerns for the USA.

When the United States has hosted the summit before, it has been held in Puerto Rico; Williamsburg, Virginia; Houston; Denver; Sea Island, Georgia; and Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.

“It’s raising concerns with security professionals, including former Secret Service professionals, saying the task of heading off potential threats at the Trump Doral golf club could be enormous,” “Anthony Chapa, a former assistant Secret Service director who planned security for inaugurations, says securing such an enormous location is a serious challenge for the Secret Service,”

“Given the potential consequences the president is facing for abusing the presidency for his own gain, we would have thought he would steer clear of blatant corruption at least temporarily; instead he has doubled down on it. The president is now officially using the power of his office to help prop up his struggling golf business,”.

Carlos Ponce

"U.S. to hold next years G 7 summit at Trump Resort" At cost. No profit to be made. I understand the use of a Trump facility came at the request of one or more attendees... but you didn't hear that from me.

Carlos Ponce

"which is a bad idea for many reasons. It looks like a blatant corruption, self-dealing, and foreign emoluments concerns for the USA" - Your opinion and that of other Trump haters.

Brian Allen

"At cost. No profit to be made. I understand the use of a Trump facility came at the request of one or more attendees... but you didn't hear that from me."

LOL...at cost? no profit? that is BS...the request came from Trump himself. Mulvaney just had a press conf. and announced that Trump wanted it.

Carlos Ponce

"They love the location of the hotel," Trump said on Monday, referring to other world leaders. "We haven't found anything that's even close to competing with it. Really you can be there in a matter of minutes after you land," as he appeared next to German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney announced Trump will make no profit from the G7.

Jim Forsythe

The selection of Doral as the site of the G-7 seems to signal the collapse of promises made by both Donald Trump and Eric Trump at the start of the Trump presidency, when they pledged to create separation between Trump's private business and his new public office.

"I will be leaving my great business in total," Trump said then.

“There are lines that we would never cross, and that’s mixing business with anything government,” Eric Trump said in 2017.

Trump's properties have hosted U.S. government officials before, and the company says it does not seek to make a profit off that business. But even so, Trump's properties can be expensive: at his Mar-a-Lago Club, for instance, the government paid Trump's company $546 per night for each staffer staying in the club's guest rooms, and another $1,000 for a single night of drinking by White House aides at one of Mar-a-Lago's bars.

Carlos Ponce

Jim's post is a cut and paste from an anti-Trump web site and are the words of writers Toluse Olorunnipa and David A. Fahrenthold of The Washington Post.[rolleyes]

Jim Forsythe

What does Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland cost per night, and it would not have the smell of a foreign emoluments concerns. But it's not good enough for Trump!

Instead, Trump just does not care.

As far as price, you and I will never know the true price as we are not invited to a place like that.

Bailey Jones

Carlos -

"'U.S. to hold next years G 7 summit at Trump Resort' At cost. No profit to be made." If you've ever operated a business, you know that providing services "at cost", especially to the rich and powerful, is great marketing - and the whole purpose of marketing is to ensure FUTURE business. This is Capitalism 101. To assume there is no profit motive in this deal is to assume that Trump isn't a businessman.

"I understand the use of a Trump facility came at the request of one or more attendees..." - I wonder who? Someone hoping to curry favor with the leader of the free world, the most powerful man on the planet? Hmmm... "Yes, Mr. President, I very much enjoyed the opportunity to recommend your wonderful resort for our G7 meeting. Perhaps now you could do me a favor..."

I'd call this corruption but I know that the Trumpites believe their savior to be incorruptible.

Carlos Ponce

"I wonder who?" Angela Merkel was standing next to him when Trump made his announcement that the facility would be used and G-7 members were pleased. One cannot assume the Chancellor was the one who suggested it but she was smiling.

Carlos Ponce

Jim, Naval Support Facility Thurmont (aka Camp David) was considered for the G-7 Summit along with 10 other locations. The Doral facility was considered the best choice, not because of Trump's ownership. It has a golf course, something desired by several delegates especially Prime Minister Abe of Japan. Facilities at Camp David don't really compare. Another plus - it's away from Washington DC.

Jim Forsythe

The Supreme Court has cautioned that a conflict of interest is “an evil which endangers the very fabric of a democratic society, for a democracy is effective only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption.”

All the new investigation that will be coming because of the G7 location, could be avoided by not holding the next G7 at a Trump place of business. But NO he has to have it his way.

Procurement Integrity Act. 41 U.S.C.

President Trump could personally face serious consequences, including civil or criminal penalties, for a violation of section 2102(b). In addition, if the OIG were to find that a violation occurred, the State Department’s procurement officials would have an affirmative legal obligation to refer the matter to the head of the contracting activity, who would have to decide whether to cancel any contract awarded to the Trump Organization

The President’s words suggest that, though his company was a competitor for the contract, he was personally involved in the procurement process. He described the officials who undertook site visits as his people: “my people looked at 12 sites.”

President Trump’s remarks further warrant an investigation to determine whether he obtained contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information resulting in a civil or criminal violation of the Procurement Integrity Act. 41 U.S.C. § 2102(b) provides: “Except as provided by law, a person shall not knowingly obtain contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information before the award of a Federal agency procurement contract to which the information relates



The circumstance of President Trump announcing the likely selection of his own resort as the site for the 2020 G7-Summit raises legitimate questions as to whether mandated procurement processes have been followed. It is unclear what role State Department officials have played in the selection process, what consideration they have given to conflicts of interest, or how they have mitigated the risk of losing impartiality in a procurement that involves the President’s personal business. There is cause for concern that a loss of impartiality could lead, for example, to a failure on their part to fully consider threats to contract performance specific to President Trump’s resort. Such threats could include Miami’s status as “one of the most vulnerable cities in the U.S. to hurricanes,” litigation or congressional investigations challenging violations of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses, “questions about the property’s cleanliness” of Trump National Doral, or concerns about security at Trump properties that have been highlighted in news reports.

Jim Forsythe

In a very real sense, President Trump’s corrupting influence jeopardizes the integrity of the procurement process, puts millions of taxpayer dollars at risk of waste or abuse, and may even compromise the security of visiting dignitaries or the confidentiality of their communications. Therefore, it is imperative that the OIG fulfill its mission “to prevent and detect” impropriety before any of these concerns can come to fruition

President Trump announcing the selection of his own resort as the site for the 2020 G7-Summit raises legitimate questions as to whether mandated procurement processes have been followed. It is unclear what role State Department officials have played in the selection process, what consideration they have given to conflicts of interest, or how they have mitigated the risk of losing impartiality in a procurement that involves the President’s personal business. In a very real sense, President Trump’s corrupting influence jeopardizes the integrity of the procurement process, puts millions of taxpayer dollars at risk of waste or abuse, and may even compromise the security of visiting dignitaries or the confidentiality of their communications. Therefore, it is imperative that the OIG fulfill its mission “to prevent and detect” impropriety before any of these concerns can come to fruition

Carlos Ponce

Get over it, Jim. The Summit will be held at the Doral June 20-22, 2020. Nothing you can do to stop it. Come November 2020 you can vote for his opponent if you don't like it - something you were going to do anyway.

Jim Forsythe

At no time did I suggest that I could stop the G7 being held at Trumps place. What I did say is that Trump is Flaunting ,that he is not going by the rules. We will see if congress stops this before it happens.

Fox’s Judge Andrew Napolitano said that by awarding himself the G7, Trump has created a direct and profound violation of the emoluments clause. The Judge continued, “He has bought himself an enormous headache now with the choice of this. This is about as direct and profound a violation of the emoluments clause as one could create.”

Republican strategist Rick Willson blasted President Donald Trump after the administration announced that the G7 meeting of world leaders would be held at his Trump National Doral Miami golf course.

You can add another article to impeachment, because Donald Trump is using the presidency for personal financial gain.

Emile Pope

Is there anyone so stupid to believe that donald won’t profit from a summit being held on a property he personally owns? Feel free to chime in anytime Republicans...

Emile Pope

"Get over it, Jim. The Summit will be held at the Doral June 20-22, 2020. Nothing you can do to stop it."



Wanna bet?

Emile Pope

Donald is a crook. And a traitor...

Carlos Ponce

So sad[sad] to see a Liberal lose it.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos Ponce Oct 18, 2019 10:32am

"Get over it, Jim. The Summit will be held at the Doral June 20-22, 2020. Nothing you can do to stop it. Come November 2020 you can vote for his opponent if you don't like it - something you were going to do anyway"

President Trump said on Saturday that he would no longer hold next year’s Group of 7 meeting at his golf club near Miami.

Carlos Ponce

"I announced that I would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA. ... based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020."

So, Jim is taking credit as one of the Democrat Crazed.

Carlos Ponce

So Jim and Emile must be among the "Democrat Crazed" if they claimed they stopped the Doral Summit.

Jim Forsythe

It's was never the Doral Summit, but the G7 Summit. When more and more Republican's starting to saying that this was a bad idea, Trump could have done as you said and chanced more charges, or admit that he was wrong. You are the one that insisted that the G7 was going to be at Trump's place . You are the one that said, Get over it, Jim. The Summit will be held at the Doral June 20-22, 2020. Now it is not, and you were wrong!

Why are you calling me Crazed, as all I did was point out why this was wrong. As I do not call you names, please stop this.

Carlos Ponce

According to Trump, "I announced that I would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA. ... based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020."

Since you are taking credit for dropping Doral being dropped, you must be one of the "Democrat Crazed" Trump is referring to. I'm not calling you "names". But by taking credit for it you must be calling yourself one. Unless you agree with my original post that Jim Forsythe can do nothing to change the location of the Summit. Now which is it????

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, as I did not call or write the president, I had nothing to do with Trump deciding not to use his place. He, and he alone was the one that had the power to do so. I have taken no credit for this or any other thing the president has done.

You and you alone said in the GDN, The Summit will be held at the Doral June 20-22, 2020 no matter what. Unless the president changes his mind, you were wrong.

Carlos Ponce

So Jim Forsythe agrees with my statement, "Nothing you can do to stop it." I was right. And just wait to see what the "alternative" to Doral will be.....

Jim Forsythe

Get over it, Jim. The Summit will be held at the Doral June 20-22, 2020.

Carlos Ponce

Wait and see.

Emile Pope

"at ZERO COST to the USA"? Then exactly who was going to pay for it? The other countries? That's illegal for that to occur. Unless Mexico is going to pay for it...

Carlos Ponce

"I announced that I would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA...."

Trump is willing to forego any cost to the government " if legally permissible". The Trump corporation running Doral would absorb the cost " if legally permissible". So now because anti-Trumps made the issue political, EMILE will pay for it.

Jim Forsythe

The issue of Doral is dead because Trump realized that congress was not going to be on board with this.



Asked on Sunday if Trump understood that his Doral decision “looked lousy”, Mulvaney said: “He knows, he thinks that people think it looks lousy.” beside looking lousy, it is illegal.

To keep a president from taking or giving any gift that could have influence, rules are in place.

Were the rooms for the United States Secret Service going to be full price? Was the food going to be full cost?

The leaders other than Trump at the G7 going to pay full cost for all their people? The press was going to pay full cost?



Gift giving for influence?

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his wife stayed at Mar-a-Lago during their February 2017 visit, and played a round of golf at Trump’s nearby resort. Former spokesman Sean Spicer said at the time that Trump gifted the room at Mar-a-Lago to Abe and his wife, raising questions about rules regarding gift giving from the U.S. president to foreign leaders.

Carlos Ponce

"raising questions about rules regarding gift giving from the U.S. president to foreign leaders." Only from the Liberals. Presidents give personal gifts to foreign dignitaries all the time. Remember when Obama....

“Barack Obama, the leader of the world’s richest country, gave the Prime Minister a box set of 25 classic American films – a gift about as exciting as a pair of socks,” reported the Telegraph.

"White visiting the Queen, the Obama family gave her an iPod, prompting raised eyebrows from the British Press. The MP3 player came pre-loaded with photos from President Obama’s inauguration and audio files of the president’s speech as a senator to the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his 2009 inauguration address. The queen reportedly already had an iPod."[rolleyes]

Jim Forsythe

Obama had the gifts approved by the Gifts Unit within the Office of the Chief of Protocol. Did Trump? It would be required for the G7, if held at Trumps place. The a box set of 25 classic American films was what the Gifts Unit helped select. Obama was following the rules.

The State Department’s Protocol Office outlined all the items that Obama received in a legally required list. While government officials are allowed to accept presents from other foreign leaders, they must turn them over to the National Archives if they are worth more than a certain amount.

The Gifts Unit within the Office of the Chief of Protocol receives all diplomatic gifts on behalf of White House and Department of State officials and maintains records pertaining to diplomatic gifts. This includes all diplomatic gifts received by the President, Vice President, and Secretary of State and their spouses. Working closely with the Chief of Protocol and the staffs of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of State, the Gifts Unit also helps select the gifts presented to foreign dignitaries.

Carlos Ponce

"Obama had the gifts approved by the Gifts Unit within the Office of the Chief of Protocol." Everyone thought those were LOUSY gifts. The receivers thought so. I'm going to give Jim Forsythe a gift - a copy of all my best GCDN posts. You'd appreciate that, right?

Jim Forsythe

I do not think that President Obama picked the gifts by himself, but what does these gifts have to do with Trump and violation of the emoluments clause? DVD's did not violate the emoluments clause!

I'm grateful for any gift that someone takes the time to pick out for me. This is what my Mother made sure I understood, and I have passed it on. Carlos, are you not grateful for gifts? What a gift represents is the time someone used to pick out the gift. If someone is ungrateful for a gift, they have a problem that can not be solved by a gift. Some of the bests gifts I have received include a flower I have pressed in a book, so I can keep it and the memory of the person that gave it to me, and a pair of socks given with love, that have never been worn so I can remember them as given..

The Doral facility debacle was not a set of DVD's or a pair of socks.

Carlos Ponce

"violation of the emoluments clause?" The emoluments clause is NOT and has not being violated by Trump.

"Judge dismisses lawsuit against Trump over Emoluments Clause"

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/366091-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-against-trump-over-emoluments-clause

You're just parroting Liberal talking points. Did you get your cracker?

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, that's old news. September 17, 2019 Last month, a federal appeals court dealt Trump a legal blow when it ruled that one of several lawsuits alleging that Trump is violating the emoluments clause can go forward. The case brought in 2018 is moving forward in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In court filings, the lawmakers argued that Trump “has a financial interest in vast business holdings around the world that engage in dealings with foreign governments and receive benefits from those governments.” In court filings, the lawmakers argued that Trump “has a financial interest in vast business holdings around the world that engage in dealings with foreign governments and receive benefits from those governments.”

I find it interesting that in the 232 year history of our constitution, no president, and we’ve had some pretty scummy presidents, ever violated the Emoluments clause to such an extent that anyone thought they needed to sue over it. Until trump. He is making history.

Trump openly directing government conference to his hotels would be straightforward corruption, not a violation of the emoluments clause. But he might have done so tacitly, which would also be corruption yet not a violation of the emoluments clause. Trump seeking favors from foreign governments that profit his foreign holdings would be such a violation. Or seeking some recompense from foreign governments for his son-in-law and son too. The nature of Trump's business dealings means there is a strong appearance of violations of the emoluments clause. An emoluments charge in an impeachment would be entirely reasonable. The reasonableness of any conviction would depend on the evidence offered.

“You people with this phony emoluments clause,” Trump said. Trump took the oath of office to uphold The Constitution of the United States and the emoluments clause is part of it. He can disagree with it, but it is not phony.

In an effort to carve emolument clauses into stone, President Dwight D. Eisenhower forced his long-time White House chief of staff, former New Hampshire Governor Sherman Adams, to resign for having accepted a gift of a vicuna overcoat and oriental rug from a manufacturer-friend then under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission.

Carlos Ponce

REPEATING: The emoluments clause is NOT and has not being violated by Trump.

You're just parroting Liberal talking points. Did you get your cracker?

Any possibility of emolument clause violation is investigated by the Justice Department. None found.

Jim Forsythe

September 17, 2019 Last month, a federal appeals court dealt Trump a legal blow when it ruled that one of several lawsuits alleging that Trump is violating the emoluments clause can go forward.

Carlos Ponce

Quoting from "Mother Jones" I see. U.S. Circuit Judge Pierre Leval wrote that opinion - a Bill Clinton appointee. U.S. Circuit Judge Christopher Droney, a Barack Obama appointee agreed with Leval. U.S. Circuit Judge John Walker, a George H.W. Bush appointee, objected in a 25 page dissent. U.S. District Judge George Daniels, another Clinton appointee, had tossed out the same case earlier claiming the President would not know who goes to his restaurants, nor the reason why they go. But you should have read further that the DOJ has appealed that ruling and it will be tossed out eventually. Using Leval's reasoning the first five presidents of the United States (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe ) would have been charged with emolument clause violations - they were not. Leval and Droney were clearly not using precedent in their partisan decision.

Jim Forsythe

The Judges and the House will decide this issue.The Judges have already have said that enough is in the charge to warrant a second look. You do not know the outcome.

Carlos Ponce

Wait and see, Jim.[beam]

Gary Miller

The only thing I regret that Trump has done is the slow way investigations of perhaps 60 or more Obama holdovers has been conducted. All of them should have been convicted and jailed a year ago. One with 16 known felonies, HRC, is even being thought of as a viable candidate for President? Almost all media attacks have been to protect or by Obama holdovers that should be in jail. Trump could have avoided many troubles if he had pushed the law harder.

Bill Broussard

Gary: Who has been convicted of 16 known felonies? That sure got my attention

Jim Forsythe

Bill. maybe he was thinking of these men. Paul Manafort. Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos ,Trump Staffer Convicted of Felony Election Fraud, Brandon Hall.

Carlos Ponce

No those individuals. Start with former FBI Director James Comey for his role in the FISA warrants.

Bailey Jones

By "16 known felonies", Gary means that after 25 months of Congressional inquiries and FBI investigations of Hillary, nothing rising to the level of an indictable offense was ever found - which, in the "great and unmatched wisdom" of DJ Trump means "totally exonerated".

Carlos Ponce

Bailey, the first of several investigations, the one into FISA abuse, will soon be revealed. And they found plenty. Problem is there is SO much there they needed extra time. Each item revealed more infractions and malefactors.

Bailey Jones

"Problem is there is SO much there they needed extra time. Each item revealed more infractions and malefactors." I feel ya, Carlos.

Carlos Ponce

Results into FISA abuse coming soon. More to follow.

Bill Broussard

Will some tell me who the 16 felonies are about?

Bailey Jones

Bill - "Will some tell me who the 16 felonies are about?" There are no such felonies. Gary is simply restating unsubstantiated talking points he hears from whatever corner of the dark net his world view comes from. You can ask him for his source - as I have done on multiple occasions - but there will be no source forthcoming. Because it's an alt-right fantasy.

Carlos Ponce

"There are no such felonies." Wait and see. You will believe.

Jim Forsythe

Jan 19, 2018 "Explosive", "Shocking" And "Alarming" FISA Memo Set To Rock DC,

Jul 22,2018 Don’t look now, but the narrative is changing, and the media won’t like it.

Dec 06, 2018 · Most damning evidence of FISA abuse

July 7, 2019 DOJ Inspector General Report On FISA Abuse Delayed

Jul 30, 2019 IG Report On FISA Abuse Now Likely Delayed Until Fall

September 17th, 2019 The IG’s FISA Report: Criminal Prosecutions Coming –

Carlos Ponce Oct 17, 2019 5:12pm Results into FISA abuse coming soon

After 2years, it's almost ready.



April 3, 2019 The Department of Justice was asked whether they could provide an update on what work counsel has undertaken, if they have contacted any members of Congress or responded to their requests, and what has been done in the last 18 months. Spokesperson Wyn Hornbuckle responded only, ‘we have no updates at this time.’

This is exceedingly strange, because there should be something to show for 18 months of work, legal analysts say.

Bailey Jones

Carlos is such a tease.

Carlos Ponce

Wait and see, Bailey. I feel sorry for those who only engage in Liberal biased media reports. So sad.[sad]

Bailey Jones

Be sure to let us know when the indictments come in.

Carlos Ponce

Soon. I'm certain the Liberal News will carry it - for only a few lines or a few seconds of air time. And they'll add in their classic line "completely debunked" but they'll never tell you by whom.

Carlos Ponce

There's a little something for you on p2 of Saturday's paper: "38 people cited for violations in Clinton email probe". No indictments mentioned here. Just punitive action. Of the 588 violations, fault could not be found in 497. That should make Bailey happy! 588 violations....Hmmmm. BO sent email to Hillary on that server.........Hope he's on the "no fault" list.[tongue]

Bailey Jones

Carlos - I'm fine if HRC, or any politician - even if it was one I liked, which is not the case here, is indicted for breaking the law, convicted and sent to jail. No one is above the law. 38 current and former State Department officials have been cited, and who knows, maybe some of them will even face disciplinary action - perhaps a nasty letter of reprimand added to their file.



From Sen. Grassley's report - "APD' s administrative review of the HRC emails resulted in the adjudication of 91 valid violations attributable to 38 individuals. Additionally, APD adjudicated 497 valid violations where no individual was found to bear culpability, resulting in a ''valid, but not culpable" determination.

Total Valid Violations Adjudicated: 91

Total VnC: 497"



So, 30000 emails reviewed, 600 issues found, 91 traced to individual stupidity - a good house cleaning. Lesson learned - don't use your own private server - duh. Even if you're Queen of the DNC.



The irony is that, 3 years ago, this sort of casual disregard for procedure and sloppy incompetence would have risen to the level of something voters cared about. But after 3 years of weekly head spinning Trumpisms - it now just seems so ... quaint.

Mike Zeller

Cited not indicted, "For current and former officials, culpability means the violations will be noted in their files and will be considered when they apply for or go to renew security clearances. For current officials, there could also be some kind of disciplinary action. But it was not immediately clear what that would be". I would have at least slapped them on the hand and sent them to their room.[tongue]

Charles Douglas

I'll tell yall what, for all those who think the MASS MEDIA, ..and like that "sell out" SENATOR SCHUMER, who thinks the American Intel, .. better known as the DEEP STATE, is so all powerfull, lets see if they can keep Trump from being reelected!!! The media has already lost that fight because of substitute communication outlets like FACEBOOK, G-mail, and TWITTER! This is why Kamala Harris and Senator Warren are attacking them now! NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times and others like them are not getting the job done to keep the American public in the dark, and uninformed! Just as ineffective, the DEEP STATE, has also failed to STOP D.J. Trump! Somebody tell me why this man has the whole world almost, and the renowned Deep State who is supposed to be all powerful, who can destroy Trump SEVEN WAYS TO SUNDAY, Senator Schumer believes, has failed to stop him? Do anybody but conservatives, in this country know? Allow me to lay it out for everybody! ( Proverbs 21:30 ) ..There is no wisdom, or understanding, or counsel, against the Lord! You can have more degrees than a thermometer, and yet not amount to be knee high to a fool, when defying the Lord God! The Lord has promised to help Israel in the latter days, and he has promised to help those who help Israel! That includes D.J. Trump. Please note it was not President Trump who sent a secret delegation to Israel to interfere in the elections of that country, it was Barack Obama! Also note that it was D.J. Trump who had the guts and love enough to formally recognize Jerusalem as the official capitol of Israel, when other Presidents promised to do so but didn't! You think God does not recognize that? Think again!!! Lastly, I will use this opportunity to do like DAVID did against all odds while confronting Unbeatable odds in GOLIATH the Philistine. ( 1 Samuel 17:46 ) David said this, " This day the Lord will hand you over to me, and I will strike you down and cut off your head, And I will give the corpses OF THE ARMY OF THE PHILISTINES this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, so that all the earth may know that there is a God in ISRAEL!" This is why Trump will be reelected and when he does, against all the odds, against the meddling of the media, the deep state, and against professional naysayers in the world, in America, and even on this forum, EVERYBODY is going to know that not only is there a God in ISRAEL, but he is also in AMERICA too! DON'T take my word for it, but you'd be better off taking God's word. Now, who want to be first to tell me I am wrong and don't have a clue? I'LL wait....

Emile Pope

You’ve got to take the meds EVERY day...

Bailey Jones

"Somebody tell me why this man has the whole world almost, and the renowned Deep State who is supposed to be all powerful, who can destroy Trump SEVEN WAYS TO SUNDAY, Senator Schumer believes, has failed to stop him? "

Easy, Charles - because the presidency comes with tremendous power, and the deep state is a myth invented by talk show hosts. I hope - and I mean this sincerely - that you don't tie your president's re-election too closely to your belief in your god. I'd hate to see your whole universe come tumbling down, Jericho style, because of this ridiculous man a year from now.

David Hardee

In America It would more effective that when invoking scripture we NOT use the scriptures of the old testament, Koran and those laced with revenge and brutality; And DO use the Christian new testament when making a call for prayer and example. The life story of Jesus (the New Testament 27 books) recounts a life without vengeance, brutality, few recriminations. Unique also is that Jesus never had or attempted to amass an army to enforce the religion he was persuading. And the New Testament was the article on which the founding father constructed our Constitution – ergo “In God We Trust”. O this Likely this paragraph will be used to accuse BIGOTRY. Only justifiable charging me of BIGOTRY must include at the minimum that the individual(s) condemnation of the extremist and those verses on which these lunatics justify their atrocities.

A lucid man with faith in any benevolent scripture deserves respect. The trust in “GOD” can sustains when all else has failed. The acts of Extremist(s) will corrupt anything and everything and must be isolated (imprisoned) and or judged and elimination from societies.

Bailey - The belief in a “deep state” existing in the Federal bureaucracies moving with zest to disrupt the Trump presidency cannot be logically dismissed as a figment of imagination; Because it is undeniable that there is evidence that in the echelon of the FBI there is documented internal messaging that proves the intent to disrupt the Trump presidency these documented messages reveal the (deep state) animosity and any that would proclaim that the participant(s) could or would NOT have had it affect their operations or duty is being intellectually absurd.

Carlos Ponce

"NOT use the scriptures of the old testament". SOME of the Old Testament has been displaced by Christ's teachings. But Christ cites several passages from the Old Testament to explain his teachings and replaces other passages such as stoning as punishment. Know the Bible, Old and New Testaments to know what is still in effect. Jesus said to obey the Commandments. And they are found in the Old Testament.

Bailey Jones

I don't discount that there are plenty of individuals in government who were (and are still) horrified by the prospect of a Trump presidency. That's not the same as an organized "Illuminati" secretly pulling the strings of government to trip him up. Unlike his two predecessors, Trump hasn't had a serious challenge. Obama had the collapse of the world economy, Bush had 9-11, these were both existential threats. The only problems Trump has are the ones he creates with his twitter account. The tornado of chaos that surrounds him is entirely of his own making - not the result of some imaginary cabal. He manufactures outrage and crisis. This is what happens when we do something we've never done before in 229 years - elect a man without a single day of political or military experience to the highest, most powerful, office in the world. There's a reason Trump has had the highest rate of turnover in the history of the presidency - and it's not the "deep state".

David Hardee

Again diversion and complication is the instrument you resort to by dragging Bush and Obama into the debate. Their trials and tribulations are irrelevant to the conspiring of the ECHELON of the FBI to disrupt (sabotage) Trump's presidency.

HORRIFIED is so sufficient in justifying the deliberate acts committed. Do you dispute that those acts were well-coordinated and were philosophically stimulated and deserve the meaning ("Illuminati" meaning - Any of various groups claiming special religious or philosophical enlightenment)?

To the qualifications of Trump - Are you of the mindset that a citizen MUST have political and military experience to be acceptable as President of the USA? You are dismissive of Trump's acts in those areas.

And I concur that many of Trump's tribulations are self-inflicted. Self-reliance, Ego, arrogance and audacity are the elements NECESSARY for a person that rises to leadership. Cooperation and mollification are the attributes that dominate for a professional politician. Trump is weak in those attributes but does have accomplishments from utilizing negotiation from strength (sometimes intimidation by use of power). Our country is swirling in the morass of many transitions that have yet to be finally resolved. No matter whether it is immigration, Syria, North Korea, Iran or G7 the final and best resolution on international relations will continue to swirl into the future. Our next president will still be grappling with these in decades to come,

What is nauseating our society does not have its origination in Trump’s election. It is the accumulation over the last 60 years of a conflict on which path we will travel – progressive liberal vs. traditional conservatives. Trump is another catalyst in the distillation process. IN GOD WE TRUST.

Bailey Jones

ummm... yes, yes, and history didn't start 60 years ago.

Carlos Ponce

It's funny watching the Democrat Party disintegrate before our eyes. Now your flag bearer in 2016 sees a Russian asset in her opponent Jill Stein. Did Jill pose any real threat as a Third Party candidate? No. And now she calls A US House member Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) a Russian asset. Who's next?

All this anti-Trump rhetoric will pay huge dividends come November 2020 - for Trump. Get your cryin' towels ready, Liberals!

The average Middle class family's income has gone up $5003 in 2.5 years of Trump according to US Census Bureau. Under Obama it went up. $1043 in 8 years.

Bailey Jones

That's an oddly specific data set, Carlos, I'd be interested to know where it came from.

Carlos Ponce

"The median or average-income family has seen a gain of $5,003 since Trump came into office. Median family income is now (August 2019) $65,976, up from about $61,000 when he entered office (January 2017)."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/10/15/its_a_middle-class_boom_141497.html

"The latest Census Bureau Current Population Survey data now show that middle-class incomes, after adjusting for inflation, have surged by $5,003 since Donald Trump became president in January 2017. Median household income has now reached $65,976 – an all-time high and up more than 8 percent in 2019 dollars under the Trump presidency."

https://www.heritage.org/markets-and-finance/commentary/middle-class-incomes-surging-thanks-trump-policies

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-middle-class-economic-progress-11569786435

Emile Pope

Just a bunch of made up garbage. The median family income for 2019 hasn't even come out yet. How can it come out with five months left in the year? And I notice that the garbage article you cited came up with no supporting data...

Bailey Jones

Your "study by former Census Bureau researchers" has done better than me, as I can only find income up to 2018 on the US Census Bureau website. And the article doesn't provide a link to source data - unless there's one behind the WSJ's paywall. But, from Income and Poverty in the United States: 2018 - US Census Bureau, table A-2, page 26-

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-266.pdf

Which lists 2016 median household income as $61,779, 2018 income as $63,179. A difference of $1400. If I accept the value from the article for 2019 - $65,976 (which I can't, short of a link to the source) that's a difference of $4197. If I compare 2016 income to 2008 income ($58,811) I get an increase of $2968 during the Obama years. The median income for 2000 is $61,399, so that's a net loss of $2588 during the Bush years (worldwide economic collapse). (These amounts are all in 2018 dollars, according to the document.)

The 2019 data seems to be from Sentier Research - not the US Census, so this could just be an apples/oranges thing.

I'm not sure what any of this proves. Incomes go up in a booming economy - even more so with huge tax cuts. Incomes go down in a recession. Incomes improve during a recovery. I would still like to see the source for this data set, if such a thing exists. You know I'm all about data.

David Hardee

Bailey – the word “history” nor any reference to “history” appeared in my posting. The word “origination” refers to a starting point. You're, out of character, the curt response is insulting. Let me offer for edification on the decay in our society the video of a Q & A at the following link.

THE VALUE OF LIFE AND GUN CONTROL - YouTube

The speaker’s comments on the questioner’s reactions (eye-rolling etc.) are reminiscent with the curt response on this thread.

Bailey Jones

I apologize if I was "curt" - my favorite TV show was on. But I've heard your arguments before - indeed I was raised on them. I assume from "IN GOD WE TRUST" you hope to endow some divine quality to conservative values, and I'm sorry but I was raised in the Southern Baptist church - and that premise has long been proven wrong in my estimation. My reading of the Bible leads me straight to progressivism - the idea that our purpose in this life is to strive for a compassionate society based on social and economic justice, where the rich help the poor, the strong help the weak, the healthy help the sick and the young help the old. I understand that many conservatives read the same Bible and reach an opposite conclusion - it does have lots of words in it after all. But that's my take, and those are my values.

As for history - progressive politics in America are at least as old as Teddy Roosevelt, and have roots in the Enlightenment. We've discussed before what happened 60 years ago - the civil rights act, the voting act, etc., and I think we've both made our opinions on it clear.

Carlos Ponce

"My reading of the Bible leads me straight to progressivism".

“If anyone is unwilling to work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10

"But now," he [Jesus] said, if you have a wallet or a pack, take it; and if you don't have a sword, sell your robe to buy one." Luke 22:36

"Do not kill the innocent or the just, for I will not acquit the guilty." Exodus 23:7 [No one is more innocent than a baby in his mother's womb.]

"For the love of money is the root of all evil..." 1 Timothy 6:10 [You will find Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals.]

Bailey Jones

As I said, "many conservatives read the same Bible and reach an opposite conclusion". It's most telling that they would even try.

Carlos Ponce

And MORE Conservatives attend church, temple or mosque than Liberals. Liberals can quote the Bible but they do so with an accent of unfamiliarity.

2004: "Gallup's final survey conducted before the 2004 election estimated that 63% of voters who attended church weekly or almost every week voted for Bush; 37% voted for Kerry. Sixty percent of those who seldom or never attended church indicated a vote choice for Kerry; 40% voted for Bush."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/16381/Church-Attendance-Party-Identification.aspx

2011: "Gallup Poll Church Attendance: Republicans Attend More Services Than Democrats"

https://www.christianpost.com/news/gallup-poll-church-attendance-republicans-attend-more-services-than-democrats.html

2015 survey: "Republicans regularly attend church at twice the rate of Democrats, 46 percent of whom never go to a house of worship, according to a new survey."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/church-poll-just-18-of-liberals-regularly-attend-62-never

2016: "Why conservative churches grow and liberal churches shrink"

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2016/12/15/why-conservative-churches-grow-and-liberal-churches-shrink/

Carlos Ponce

"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me. " Matthew 26:11- Not very Progressive.

Bailey Jones

Lots of words in that Bible -

Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.— Proverbs 31:8-9

Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor will himself call out and not be answered.- Proverbs 21:13

Do not exploit the poor because they are poor and do not crush the needy in court, for the Lord will take up their case and will exact life for life.— Proverbs 22:22-23

If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need.— Deuteronomy 15:7-8

It is a sin to despise one’s neighbor, but blessed is the one who is kind to the needy.— Proverbs 14:21

Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.— Proverbs 14:31

The generous will themselves be blessed, for they share their food with the poor.— Proverbs 22:9

Those who give to the poor will lack nothing, but those who close their eyes to them receive many curses.— Proverbs 28:27

If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday. The Lord will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail.— Isaiah 58:6-11

Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.— Isaiah 1:17

And the word of the Lord came again to Zechariah: This is what the Lord Almighty said: “Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other.”— Zechariah 7:8-10

If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.— 1 John 3:17

Then Jesus said to his host... When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.— Luke 14:14

Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.- Galatians 6:2

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.- James 2:14-17

Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.- Philippians 2:4

Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.- James 1:27

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves.- Romans 15:1

And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’- Matthew 25:40

In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”- Acts 20:35

Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. - Luke 12:33-34

And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. - Acts 2:44-45

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack.” - 2 Corinthians 8:13-15

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” - Matthew 19:21

And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise.” - Luke 3:11

Come now, you rich, weep and howl for the miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days. Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. .- James 5:1-6

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money. - Matthew 6:24

Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.- Acts 4:32-35



And as for the verse that Jesus was referencing -

For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

- Deuteronomy 15:11




Carlos Ponce

Those are not Progressive only scriptures. Conservatives follow them. As for giving to the poor why don't most Democrats give to the poor? Oh, that's right they claim they do through their taxes. But the "poor" don't get it all. Bureaucracy takes the bulk.

Carlos Ponce

"‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land." "YOU", not the government. As far as giving personally, Liberals are tightwads.

Carlos Ponce

I really don't think God considers the taxes you pay the government the "tithe" or part of it. Seems that most Liberals do....[innocent]

Bailey Jones

"Why don't liberals go to church?" Might it have something to do with the observation that a religious conservative will actively search the Bible to find justifications for not helping the poor?

Personally, I've not seen data that supports the idea that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. What does seem to be true is that conservatives have more charitable deductions than liberals, but since - as you have stated - conservatives are more likely to belong to a church than liberals , a good bit of what conservatives give goes to support their own religious organizations, not to what we might think of as "charity".

There's the oft cited example of Romney vs Obama - in 2012, Romney gave a higher percentage of his income than Obama, 29.4% to 21.8%. But more than 80% of Romney's donations were to the LDS church. Obama’s contributions mostly went to humanitarian organizations like the Red Cross and the United Negro College Fund.

A very interesting article here (https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2012/06/01/giving-differently-liberals-and-conservatives-have-radically-different-views-of-charity/) about a Rice University study on how liberals and conservatives give. You won't find it as emotionally satisfying as your idea that conservatives are better people than liberals, but that tends to be the way with science.

Carlos Ponce

"....religious conservative will actively search the Bible to find justifications for not helping the poor?"

Conservatives help the poor. That is an individual mandate given to us by Christ and the Church. Having the government "help the poor" does not fulfill that mandate. Conservatives donate more of their time, talent and treasure to help the poor than Liberals.

Emile Pope

Made up garbage...

Carlos Ponce

All I have posted can be verified with a little research. If you don't want the truth stay ignorant.

Jim Forsythe

When I give to a group such as United way, Salvation Army and such, I have never been asked If I was a conservative or something else. Giving is not a contest for someone to brag that my group gives more than yours. I have no idea how much I give, as many other's also do not know. If you are keeping score as how much you give, the question should be why?

Bailey Jones

Jim, I remember seeing John Hagee on one of the religious TV stations years ago giving a sermon to the camera during one of their never ending fund raising drives. He said something to the effect of "the day will come when you are in heaven and all you have is what you've given to the church while you were alive". No one wants to be broke in heaven.

Emile Pope

ponce makes a totally ridiculous statement, offers no sources or proof, and then wants others to go and research and look up verification for his misstatements. Not my job to prove your point...

Carlos Ponce

Emile, if you are too ignorant to do the research just point out what you disagree with and I'll provide the proof. I hate spoon feeding you the information - I thought you were more intelligent than that. I was wrong on that point.

Carlos Ponce

"Bleeding Heart Tightwads"

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomwatson/2012/06/01/giving-differently-liberals-and-conservatives-have-radically-different-views-of-charity/#7895b2eb8d58

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1018414674

https://ethicsdaily.com/republican-states-give-more-to-charity-than-democratic-states-cms-19923/

Carlos Ponce

Jim, in giving consider Jesus' story of the widow's mite.

Bailey Jones

"Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays." Now we see the true moral high ground.

Carlos Ponce

Sexual orientation was not part of my original post but the Conservative Gays (like Log Cabin Republicans) give more than the Progressive Gays I am told.

Jim Forsythe

Giving is not a contest for someone to brag that my group gives more than yours.

Carlos Ponce

Doing what God wants us to do is not a game - it's His command. But it does make those who don't look like hypocrites especially when they claim to take the upper road of morality.

Jim Forsythe

God command's you to judge who gives the most? You have no idea how much someone gives. When someone gives from the heart, they do not write it down so later they can say, I gave more than you. Carlos, you have no way of knowing if I gave more than you did last year! The reason is, you may keep track of every penny that you put in the red kettle, give to woman shelters, give to food drive and so on, but I do not, as a lot of others do not. In your judgement are you including time that a person spends working at a place in need, such as Salvation Army and other such places?

Trying to say one group gives more than another group, is a task that can not be done.

Carlos Ponce

"God command's you to judge who gives the most?" No. God commands each to render tithes - more Conservatives render than Liberals.

Jim Forsythe

And no other gifts count, but tithes? Even with tithes, you have no idea how much someone gives.

I have been to many churches, and they had no idea how much I placed in the basket!

How do you know that more Conservatives render than Liberals? Do more Conservatives give to the red kettles more then Liberals. Do more Conservatives give more to Salvation Army, United Way, then Liberals? The answer is you have no way of knowing.

Trying to pit one group against another and trying to add up how much is given, is not the way giving should be done. It should be done out of the goodness of a person.

When someone tithes, do they check a box that says that they are a republican or a demarcate?

Carlos, how much did you give compared to me. You have no way of knowing how much I gave as I have no way how much you give?

Carlos Ponce

"How do you know that more Conservatives render than Liberals?" They took a survey and asked them. There is a line of demarcation between Conservatives and Liberals with Liberals confirming they don't give as as much. Plenty of articles that substantiate that claim. I only have problems for those who claim the higher ground and do not tithe - hypocrites.

Carlos Ponce

It also could be that Liberals have a growing number on non-religious in their ranks so giving isn't part of their lives. Remember the boos aimed at Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's interpretation of the voice vote on including God and recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Jerusalem in their Democrat Party Platform?

“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential,” was found objectionable to many DNC delegates.

Carlos Ponce

"Carlos, how much did you give compared to me." It's not how much but the percentage. "Tithe" means one-tenth. Remember Ted Cruz's opponent in 2018 He gave between 1% and 2% but assumed the higher moral ground. Many have problems with that. Don't judge a person by what he gives but then that person should not assume the higher moral ground.

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, you have no idea what percent I give. As far as the 10% you give, how much of that goes into the upkeep of the church,and how much goes to helping the ones in need? You may Give more than that, and if you do, great for you. I do know that you give time to the band, which is worth more than money. Does you church require you to being in your tax returns as some churches do.

"Every Jew was required by the Levitical law to pay three tithes of his property (1) one tithe for the Levites; (2) one for the use of the temple and the great feasts; and (3) one for the poor of the land."

This makes no difference.

According to recently released tax records, the Texas senator contributed less than 1 percent of his income to charity between 2006 and 2010.

Carlos Ponce

"Carlos, you have no idea what percent I give." I never said I did. If you tithe, great! That's better than the majority of your Liberal brethren. But you must realize church going Liberals are on the decline.

Jim Forsythe

You have no way of knowing, who gives what at any of the many churches in the USA.

I know of no church that breaks down the income from the collections by, this amount was given by a Conservatives and this amount by Liberals. How many Conservatives attend your church and how many Liberals attend your church.?

Most people try and keep politics out of their church.

For the ones going to church.

What percentage does a Conservative give per year?

What percentage does a Liberal give per year?

Sunday is the highest giving day of the week (27 percent), but that still means that 73 percent of giving happens at other times—including impulsive middle-of-the-night giving (more than 30 percent comes between the hours of 9 PM and 6 AM).

Carlos Ponce

"You have no way of knowing, who gives what at any of the many churches in the USA." Do a little research, Jim. The information is out there.

Jim Forsythe

As with many people that go to church, they give cash that is not able to be traced as to who gives it. .Carlo only 3-5% of Americans who give to their local church do so through regular tithing. The other give, but how much?

You,Carlos have no why of proving if the person that is giving, is a Conservatives or a Liberal

More income may equal less giving.

For Christian families making less than $20k per year, 8% of them gave at least 10% in tithing. For families making a minimum of $75k or more, the figure drops to just 1%

37% of people who attend church every week and identify themselves as Evangelical don’t give any money to their church

77% of those who tithe give 11%–20% or more of their income, far more than the baseline of 10%

Tithing is not the only giving people do.

The other thing that tithing statistics don’t show is how much money that “non-tithers” actually put toward other non-profit causes. Because many Christians don’t feel that the New Testament requires a 10% obligation on their finances, those that do donate to their local church tend to donate other places in similar amounts. A 3% donation to the church is often followed up with other 3% donations to other charitable organizations that may or may not be operating inside the “missions” of Christianity.

Carlos Ponce

Bottom line, Conservatives give more of their time, talent and treasure than their Liberal brethren.

Jim Forsythe

You have no way to prove it! Because Liberals give more of their time, talent and treasure .

Just because I said that, does not make it true.Just as you keep repeating the same thing, does not make it true.

No one has ever counted what I gave, just as many others give but are never counted, as to the amount they give!

Maybe in your church, each donation comes with a note that says, I'm a Liberal or I'm a conservative giving this amount.

You have no way of telling if the money comes from a Liberal or a conservative, in the collection basket.

Carlos Ponce

"You have no way to prove it!" It is the Consensus of many who have studied, surveyed on who gives and who does not. Conservatives give more than Liberals.

Jim Forsythe

What percent does each give? You are not proving anything, just repeating results from some poll.

In your church, what percent does each group give? You have way of knowing. Multiply this unknown number by the number of churches in USA, add the number of TV churches in USA, You now have a unknown number, because no one knows!

What is amassing is that you are so wrapped up in, this group gives more. By doing this, you are judging one group over the other.

If I give 11% and you give 10% are you less in the eyes of God? If you are giving the max that you can , why should this not be celebrated?

I knew a man at work that gave 100% of his salary. Is he better than others, of course not. For some reason you think the amount matters, and not the reason someone gives is what is important.

Carlos Ponce

"What percent does each give?" Look it up. Each survey; Google, MIT, Pew Research, etc produced a different number with the same results: CONSERVATIVES GIVE MORE THAN LIBERALS! For example: Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, "Who Really Cares," cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: Average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/conservatives-are-more-giving-than-liberals/

Jim Forsythe

Well, it really depends on what you define as “charity” and “liberal” or “conservative.”

It also depends what timeline we’re using. The timeline of 2014 showed that the red states were massively the bigger givers, it was updated for 2017, in which there was virtually no difference.

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor,"

I'm assuming you mean charitable donations. It depends on how you determine donations. When you include church giving, conservatives appear to donate more money, because you've added a separate type of donation that doesn't always serve a charitable purpose. If you don't count church giving, or even if you only count half of church giving, liberals donate more money.

Data suggests that liberals and conservatives have little if any difference in their charitable giving. While conservatives are noted for giving generously to their churches in greater proportion than liberals, most of those dollars are not channeled to humanitarian causes — but instead pay for church upkeep. An MIT study in 2013 concluded that “liberals are no more or less generous than conservatives once we adjust for differences in church attendance and income."

The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor,"

Why does this matter?

Because giving money to an organization that provides you with things is not really giving to charity. If you attend services, rely on the pastor, send your kids to Sunday school, and are otherwise receiving services from that church, then the money you give them is more like dues you pay to a club that then provides with a place to go and services you value.

Carlos Ponce

"found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes" OH COME ON! A DONATION IS A DONATION! When you give to the person on the side of the road money are you guaranteed he will spend it on food not booze? Do you double check each charity for percentage that ACTUALLY spent on "welfare purposes" and not for building upkeep, salaries, etc.?????? Jesus DID NOT say don't spend contributions on temple upkeep! BOTTOM LINE : Conservatives give more of their time, talent treasure than Liberals!

Jim Forsythe

Why does this matter?

Because giving money to an organization that provides you with things is not really giving to charity. If you attend services, rely on the pastor, send your kids to Sunday school, and are otherwise receiving services from that church, then the money you give them is more like dues you pay to a club that then provides with a place to go and services you value.

Well run charities can reasonably give 85% or more of the money they get A charity that only gives 10 to 25% to charities, will soon loose their tax standing with the IRS. The only part of money from the church that can count as charity, is the amount that is used for charitable causes.

Below is one of the 20 charities that give at the rate of 99% or more.

International Children's Fund which gave at 99.70%

Carlos Ponce

You have a mis-perception of Biblical tithing. Study your Bible.

Jim Forsythe

You have a mis-perception that "Conservatives give more of their time, talent treasure than Liberals!" which is not true. Why is it important to you, to judge one group over another? "Do not judge, or you too will be judged."

"Tithing is not required. What is required is that you support your church according to your ability. If you can only afford to give a "little amount", then that little is a lot for you to give and that sacrifice is what counts, and it does not need to be 10%."

"The whole Old Covenant system of worship was founded upon sacrificial giving. Some scholars have estimated that the average Israelite was required to give at least 30% [note- Deuteronomy 12:6 and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, your vow offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock] of his farming income to the Levites (Num. 18:21) to fulfil his obligations to the Law of Moses (the Mosaic Law). "

Carlos Ponce

Give it up, Jim. Too much evidence available that proves Conservatives giver more of their time, talent and treasure.

The debate started with Bailey's comment, "My reading of the Bible leads me straight to progressivism". Conservatives follow the Bible teachings. Most Liberals put those ideals of caring for the widowed, orphaned, the poor in the hands of the government with little personal involvement. When it comes to the defense of the innocent, Liberals instead select "a woman's right to choose".

Jim Forsythe

You can not prove that Conservatives give more of their time, talent and treasure. Your talking points have no bases in what is happing in the communitys in the USA. Most people do not document when they share their time and use their talents because it is not a contest. I have no need to keeping track of my giving. Do you track your giving, and if you do, why?

One can not think that all conservatives are against abortion, just as one can not think that all liberals are for abortion.

Everyone has their personal views.

Stances on abortion vary considerably among Christian denominations.

1. United Church of Christ

Since 1971, the UCC has repeatedly reaffirmed that the availability of safe and legal abortions is consistent with a woman's right to "follow the dictates of her own faith," .

In continuing attempts to keep abortion affordable to all women, in January 2015, the UCC sent out a press release expressing opposition to Home Rule (HR) 7, a proposed law by Congress that would ban federal funding of abortions.

2. Unitarian Universalist Association

In a general resolution in effect since 1987, the UUA reaffirmed its longtime belief in women's rights to choose both contraception and abortion as an "expression of their constitutional rights."

Also, in the resolution, the group expresses support for the legislative funding of safe abortions for low-income women. They oppose any moves to deny government funds as a way of restricting access to contraceptive and abortion services.

3. Metropolitan Community Church

In a Statement of Faith issued in 2013,, the MCC, also goes beyond a pro-choice stance to call on governments to make sure that women "have the right to choose their reproductive health care options and the means to exercise those options at their sole discretion."

4. Presbyterian Church USA

The Presbyterian Church USA and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are essentially pro-choice, too. Both, however, oppose most late-term abortions where the fetus is viable.

While the Presbyterian Church contends that elective abortions can be "morally acceptable," it regards late-term abortions as a "grave moral concern" that should only be performed under rare circumstances.

5. Evangelical Lutheran Church

While falling short of demanding federal funding of abortion, the Evangelical Lutheran Church believes that "abortion prior to viability should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding."

The Lutheran Church also argues, however, that abortions after the point of fetal viability should be banned unless either the mother's or child's life is at stake.

6. Christ Church (Assembly of God)

Taking a more apolitical approach in the realm of Christian views on abortion, the Assembly of God opposes any attempts to "legislate a religious opinion on abortion for all Americans," according to the ACCSD. At the same time, it supports both "the sacredness of life for all persons" and "a woman's right to reproductive freedom."

7. United Methodist Church

The UMC supports the legal option of abortion under certain circumstances.

"We recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases we support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures by certified medical providers,”.

Carlos Ponce

"You can not prove that Conservatives give more of their time, talent and treasure. "- I don't have to. There are dozens of organizations who have proven that for me.[beam] Maybe Jim doesn't trust MIT, Google, New York Times, The Fscal Times, The Seattle Times, The Daily Caller, Psychology Today, Real Clear Politics, City-Journal, Non-Profit Quarterly, American Thinker, Forbes, Washington Post, LA Times, Townhall, San Antonio Express-News, Free Republic, etc.

Jim Forsythe

Still trying to count “tithing... to the church.” as giving to charity. US churches’ have federal income tax exemption, not because of giving, but because they are churches. Also unreported donations are a big factor, as many do not report what they give.

Putting $100 into the red kettle or giving to the poppies sells, fill the boot for the firemen, and may others that I give to, but I have never added it up to get a total as to how much I have given in a year! I have no need to add up how much I give, as I'm not in a contest to determine who gives the most. Are unreported donations part of the amount you calculating as giving, of course not because it is unreported. You are trying to prove the unprovable.

Conservatives (Carlos) are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of “tithing... to the church.” All surveys do is take IRS data “showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers.” What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable may not be the same thing. For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.

Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as “charitable giving,” then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the studies shows that non-religious people don’t donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher “charitable” giving.

Donations to churches may get reused in a manner that would not be tax-deductible itself, as it would not be considered charitable. For instance, donations to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, are tax-deductible. Yet the organization gave almost $2 million to fund anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. If the “charitable” Catholics who gave that money had directly donated it to NOM, they would never have received a tax write-off.

Carlos Ponce

"Still trying to count “tithing... to the church.” as giving to charity." GOD does, JESUS does.

Jarvis Buckley

BB your socialistic views are starting to show!!

David Hardee

The difference between charity and enabling is the misunderstanding of those "progressive liberals." For example, NEW NEEDLES for addicts is the ultimate disqualified as a charity by an idiot. It is reasonable that the NEW NEEDLE program has made a significant contribution to the horrific decay illustrated by feces from defecating in public in San Francisco.

Just one of many examples of stupidity.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for Reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.