The radical socialists have co-opted the Democratic Party name. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer confirm they will not consider any border security funding that includes a barrier, regardless of whether the partial shutdown has ended.

I ask you to fact-check these people regularly, as you have President Trump. Also, a fact-based piece on the Secure Fence Act, which is still in effect, but lacking in full implementation due to holdup on the funding.

Working border patrol agents, as well as Obama's ex-chief of border patrol, reiterate the crisis at our border, and the need for increased security and barriers now, as the continual caravans approach and increase. So deep is the Democratic hatred of Trump, that there are no "moderate Democrats" who will compromise.

I could never embrace the Democratic Party that booed God and Jerusalem at their convention, and sanctions the murder of unborn infants. Sounds like the Rev. James Daniels chooses to stand with the goats. Personally, I will stay with my shepherd.

Sandra Woodford

Texas City

Locations

(54) comments

Jim Forsythe

You do know that Goat stands for, Greatest Of All Time. It has been use that way, for some time.

Claudia Burnam

I'm pretty sure MS Woodford means the animal. AND, I have never used goat to mean greatest of all time! E G Wiley

Kimberley Jones Yancy

Jesus loves all lives. It truly bothers me that those who say they love God can be the biggest racist of all time. How can you say you love the unborn but not the born? Christianity is not a “Luby’s Line.” The juvenile system in Galveston County is a good place to start to see the injustice. There are plenty of Democratics who protect the unborn and love God too. To label all Democrats and Republicans just one way is dangerous. If that we’re true based on the recent commentary I would think Republicans hated every one who who was non-white and Trump is a crook. To call one of our most respected Christian African-American leaders In our county a goat is unacceptable, unprofessional, not a Christian definitely crosses a line of civility. And I believe our sherperd would agree based on John 13:34-35. “Let me give you a new command: Love one another. In the same way I loved you, you love one another. This is how everyone will recognize that you are my disciples—when they see the love you have for each other.” Practicing Christians display that love not calling each other goats in a published newspaper in a generation where people are leaving the church in droves is just not intelligent or kind.

George Croix

WHO is that 'biggest racist of all time"....
Do you mean Pres. trump?
The President who has made it possible for blacks to have the lowest unemployment of ALL TIME....for hispanics to have the lowest of all time....
If that's 'racist', then he's sure doing a lousy job of it....he should get some coaching in how to do it better from his predecessor.....

Carlos Ponce

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Matthew Chapter 25

Dan Freeman

Mr. Ponce wrote: “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Matthew Chapter 25

He gave us verses 31-34 and 41. What he left out reads, beginning with verse 35: 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Jesus loved the hungry, the alien, the sick and those in prison. He was a Social Democrat.

After versus 41, Jesus promises damnation to the wealthy and self-righteous: “42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I guess Mr. Ponce forgets that in Aramaic one reads from right to left, hence his mistaking the right and left of whom Jesus spoke.

Carlos Ponce

Was Matthew written in Aramaic or Greek?
A web search indicates the Gospel according to Matthew was written in Greek.
Jesus calls upon us as individuals to feed the hungry, clothe them, etc, not the government. Studies show more Conservatives donate more of their time, talent and treasure to those in need than Liberals. If you are relying on the government taking care of what Jesus requires, "There won't be any trumpets blowing come the judgement day."
And he wants all to obey civil law. Conservatives welcome the LEGAL immigrant. Those who enter illegally are not following His teachings.
I suggest you study the Bible from a Jewish perspective since it was written by Jews.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/

George Croix

Greatest at WHAT, though, Jim?
Pol Pot and Josef Stalin and others all vie for 'greatest of all time', but it's the category that is the devil in the details.........

Jim Forsythe

George, one of the first to uses of Goat was Muhammad Ali.
Michael Jordan has been referred to as a Goat.
As far as a overall athlete, Jim Thorpe is a Goat.
In Science, Technology, Engineering and Math many might be a Goat ,depending on the person doing the picking.
Depends on the group you are talking about, the one out of that group that is considered a Goat, would be the one considered the Greatest.

Carlos Ponce

Jim Forsythe, since you like the word "goat" so much, bear the title proudly! Because of your age, does that make you an "old goat"?????

George Croix

In Ali's case, the self-moniker is probably pretty darn accurate. Maybe even same for Thorpe.
For SOOOO many others, it's wishful thinking, unless it refers to the recently departed Judas goat.....imo, as always.........

Jim Forsythe

If I was going to be goat, it would be a Golden Guernsey .
Thank you for saying that I'm the Greatest of all time, for being old.

Carlos Ponce

Jim, in Spanish speaking countries one does not use the word for an adult goat in polite company. Just like we don't use the word for female cat or female dog in polite company.

Gary Miller

The first three weeks of the partial government shutdown the DOW went up 561 points. Got better the fourth week.DOW up another 628 points for 1189 points total in one month. Investors think a border wall would be a great investment in the US economy.

Jim Forsythe

The Democratic leadership was inserting two changes into the platform: One to assert that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, one to put the words “God-given” back into the opening of the document.
The chair, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, asked whether the changes — which, it should be noted, had the strong support of the President — should be adopted. He listened for the required two-thirds “Aye” voice vote from the floor. What he heard was much closer to a fifty-fifty split. He asked for another voice voice and heard the same split.
Then, disregarding these votes, he announced, in the opinion of the chair, the “Aye”s had the two-thirds majority — clearly untrue to anyone watching and listening.
And so, the “Nay”s booed the procedure, which asked them for their opinion and then ignored it.
They did not boo Jerusalem. They did not boo God.
Video of the incident bears out this version of events — the delegates did not boo when the amendments referencing Jerusalem and God were introduced, they did not boo when those amendments were seconded, they did not boo during any of the three voice votes on those amendments. They booed only at the conclusion of the entire process, to express their displeasure with the chairman for clearly ignoring the outcome of the vote:

Carlos Ponce

"They did not boo Jerusalem." Not good.

Bailey Jones

Save your breath, Jim. Anyone who believes that Democrats are "radical socialists" is under the spell of right wing demagoguery. You will not convince them otherwise.

Carlos Ponce

No, we listen to the words of Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Robert O'Rourke, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Bill DeBlasio, Andrew Cuomo, Nancy Pelosi, Rashida Tlaib, Maxine Waters, Harris County judge Franklin Bynum ... Shall I continue?
This may not be what you believe in but it's the direction the Democrart Part is heading

Jim Forsythe

Carlos, "No, we listen to the words" and you have a list of Democrats that you listen to.
Yes that list contains people not afraid to speak up. Some are in DC for the first time and you already know their names. How many people know the new Republicans names? Democrats have a large tent that all are welcome. The new House members are already taking actions and not just disappearing into the background.
"Hours later, the group marched from an impromptu, outdoor news conference to McConnell’s Capitol office, with reporters and cameras in tow."
"It was the first in a series of moves freshman Democrats are planning to put their own stamp on the bitter battle over President Donald Trump’s border wall and a shutdown that has consumed the start of their congressional careers."What has the new Republicans done so far?
“This class was sent here to shake things up,” said the 34-year-old Joe Neguse (D-Colo.). “We’re not going to sit idly by.”

Jim Forsythe

As far as the Republicans, some are doing more than just talking. These are just a few that have worked during the Trump years, but got in trouble.
. Michael Cohen
Galveston, Texas Federal District Judge Samuel B. Kent (R) ,U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter
U.S. Representative Chris Collins ,U.S. Representative Blake Farenthold (R-TX), US Representative Greg Gianforte (R-MT) US Representative Timothy F. Murphy (R-PA), the married, anti-abortion congressman resigned just before an investigation could begin concerning his allegedly urging his mistress to seek an abortion,

George Papadopoulos , Paul Manafort , Michael Flynn, Tom Price, Taylor Weyeneth (R) Deputy at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy resigned when it was revealed the 24 year old had no qualifications for the position and no related work history other than working on President Trump's campaign
Rob Porter, Rick Gates
Scott Pruitt (R) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency resigned citing increasing numbers of investigations into his administration.

Carlos Ponce

Jim posts, "Yes that list contains people not afraid to speak up."
And most of them are far-Left Über Liberals. That's the Democrat Party of today.

L' Ouest

Well said.

Carlos Ponce

Jim posts: "They booed only at the conclusion of the entire process, to express their displeasure with the chairman for clearly ignoring the outcome of the vote:"
And what was that vote? (taken three times by the way)
Obvious that the nays were vociferous. What were they opposed to?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG6qgSfaARE
"Amendment 1
Page 32, Line 48: 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 to most of their God-given potential."
Are you opposed to that, Jim? Many DNC delegates were.
"Amendment 2
Page 63, Line 26: Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."
Are you opposed to that, Jim? Many DNC delegates were.
Listen to the voice vote, Jim. Did the "ayes" or the "nays". win?
"...to express their displeasure with the chairman for clearly ignoring the outcome of the vote". In other words it is apparent Jim thinks the nays won since the chairman ruled the "ayes" had won.
What were the "boos" for? "...to express their displeasure with the chairman for clearly ignoring the outcome of the vote." Jim writes. The first mentions "God", the second "Jerusalem".
Jim posts, "They did not boo Jerusalem. They did not boo God."
They did vote against those amendments and displeased with the chairman's ruling that the "ayes" have it.
Why were the majority of DNC candidates against the amendments?
This is not the party Jim Forsythe grew up with. It is far Left.

Jim Forsythe

Some may not have like a part of the amendment, such as some may have wanted it worded a different way. There are many reason some may have not liked it, but you would have to ask them what they did not like.
A voice of no does not mean they were against "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 to most of their God-given potential."
The next time you are at a Republican Convention, I'm sure that every thing that comes up to vote will be 100% approved with no one voting the other way for any reason.
Just because Republicans think they are right, does not mean everyone else is wrong.
Just as all Democrats do not think alike, the same goes for Republicans.
"Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including Christian democrats, conservatives, right-libertarians, neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists, fascists, reactionaries and traditionalists".
Trying to say all in a party thinks the same, lacks any effort to understand what each person stands for.


Carlos Ponce

So what does Jim Forsythe find wrong with either amendment?

Paul Hyatt

Really? I watched that fiasco of the DNC meeting and it was appalling to see how many of the DNC hated God and hate Jerusalem.... That is one image I will never forget watching....

Diane Turski

Here is a fact check for Sandra: everything she said is false. The end.

Carlos Ponce

Can you be more specific, Dianne?

L' Ouest

Good fact-checking.

L' Ouest

Good fact-checking, Diane. I agree - all false.

Carlos Ponce

And yet, neither Diane Turski and L'Quest can state wahat they consider "false".

George Croix

Pope!! You can't change your name....that one's already taken by another 'resistance' member....[beam][beam][beam]

George Croix

Not gonna get into the religious aspects of the author's article, as my religion is personal, but the meat of the subject is sound.
Hard to place any...any...credibility in people who openly state and/or agree that 'not accepting the results of an election is a direct threat to our Democracy', and who then proceed to 'resist' that very thing....
It's a lot like the NOW bunch...for women, as long as the women think and act just like them.......
[wink]

George Croix

ps:
"Radical socialism" is, IMO, is a COMPLIMENT when compared to the outright lunacy posited by two of the most MSM prominent new freshman Reps.....that would be Ocasio-Cortez, and Tlaib....absolute clueless...even worse than Bernie and that 1024th central American Indian, ....which makes one wonder what forces were involved in their election...

Jim Forsythe

A person is elected by the people they represent. They would not be in DC if no one wanted them from there area. .
One example id Ted Cruz, a lot of people is other states do not understand why Texas sent him to DC. Of course the reason is because more people voted for him in Texas.

George Croix

EXACTLY my point, Jim.
Does it not at least make you wonder how enough people are actually godawful dumb enough to BELIEVE that, for instance, fossil fuels could be eliminated in 10 years, to actually VOTE for anyone...anyone...making just that one unfixable claim?
It's a bit like the one's badmouthing the rich...who ARE themselves rich....yet people vote for them, too, to get even with the "1%ers"....
Ya can't make silliness like this up, but we can all suffer from letting such deep thinkers vote in a majority.....

margo holst

Radical Socialist is an interesting term, sounds like a talk radio phrase. The reasons for using seem bogus. A single event in the years long debate about immigration must be considered in the matrix it was made. The writer failed to note previously both houses of congress passed a new funding bill that included border security in but no Wall and Trump was ready to sign it until the talk radio hosts complained and the puppet he is, decided to reject it. One would think it would have prompted the writer to considered the problem is more Trump’s than the Democrats.

While the Secure Fences Act is valid it must recalled that any funding shortfall is do to Republican majorities for several years. Everyone in both parties recognizes there are shortfalls in border protection however failure to proceed cannot be heaped on Democrats by falsely calling them radical socialists. (Yes there are outspoken persons wanting change.) Instead one might consider who was controlling the Republicans members, could it be the oligarchs that fund the majority of their campaign and/or the evangelical crowd that might be sensible but have a one issue sense of politics?

The false statement about booing has refuted. Being anti-abortion is more troubling. In the land, of life and the pursuit of happiness, how do you justify violating the whole concept of personal independence? Total control of the population physical body is more a failed Communist governance idea. Apparently some ideas never die especially if you can profit from their genetic fear response.

Since there is no common definition of a Radical Socialist likewise there is no definition of Religious Communist which may apply to the author.
DJ Kava

Carlos Ponce

"passed a new funding bill that included border security in but no Wall and Trump was ready to sign it until the talk radio hosts complained and the puppet he is, decided to reject it."
Margo or DJ Kava, that's a lie.

Carlos Ponce

"The false statement about booing has refuted." The boos were aimed at DNC Convention Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles Mayor. That's not important.
But it does open up other questions.
They booed the alleged passage of two amendments to the Democrat platform. Sounds like the nays had it. Ignore the boos. Listen to the vote.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG6qgSfaARE
They were against
"Amendment 1: Page 32, Line 48: 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 to most of their God-given potential."
They were against
"Amendment 2 Page 63, Line 26: Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."
They "booed" because the audio indicates the nays actually won. They were against those amendments. Why? Why would any American be against them?

George Croix

It's not really PERSONAL independence to make that 'choice' unless that chooser is the one no longer living, and in a dumpster afterwords.......

Otherwise, ALL killing for convenience would be 'legalized'.....

Carlos Ponce

Again, I ask:
They [DNC Delegates] were against
"Amendment 1: Page 32, Line 48: 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 to most of their God-given potential."
They were against
"Amendment 2 Page 63, Line 26: Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."
They "booed" because the audio indicates the nays actually won. They were against those amendments. Why? Why would any American be against them?
Why Won't ANY Democrat answer this question??????????????

Jim Forsythe

Some may not have like a part of the amendment, such as some may have wanted it worded a different way. There are many reason some may have not liked it, but you would have to ask them what they did not like.
A voice of no does not mean they were against "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 to most of their God-given potential."
The next time you are at a Republican Convention, I'm sure that every thing that comes up to vote will be 100% approved with no one voting the other way for any reason.
Just because Republicans think they are right, does not mean everyone else is wrong.
Just as all Democrats do not think alike, the same goes for Republicans.
"Political scientists and other analysts regard the Right as including Christian democrats, conservatives, right-libertarians, neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists, fascists, reactionaries and traditionalists".
Trying to say all in a party thinks the same, lacks any effort to understand what each person stands for.

Carlos Ponce

That does not answer my question, Jim. "but you would have to ask them what they did not like." THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING!!!!!
"Just as all Democrats do not think alike, the same goes for Republicans."
These are delegates who represent Democrats in the Democrat Party chosen from Democrat precincts. Why are they against these Amendments to the Democrat Platform? Apparently you cannot answer. But let me ask JIM FORSYTHE: Is there ANYTHING in the Amendments YOU have problems with?

Jim Forsythe

I say it again, you do not know what the reason they why some were voting no. Many reasons vary and they only know why they voted the way they did.. It could be just the wording. If you were ever at one of these type of meetings, you would might know what goes on behind the scenes.
Everyone has a different reason why they are for or against something
As for being for or against this, I would have had to been there to know what was going on, to be able to decide how to vote.
All you are seeing is a short clip of the voting and not the hours leading up to the vote..
Trying to make a big deal out of something that passed, why?

Carlos Ponce

But let me ask JIM FORSYTHE AGAIN: Is there ANYTHING in the Amendments YOU have problems with?
I know you cannot answer for those who voted "nay" but you can answer for yourself.

Carlos Ponce

"Trying to make a big deal out of something that passed, why?"
Obviously because of all the "boos" that followed the vote.
JIM FORSYTHE: Is there ANYTHING in the Amendments YOU have problems with?

Jim Forsythe

As for being for or against this, I would have had to been there to know what was going on, to be able to decide how to vote. Maybe you do not require all the facts before voting at a event like this, but I do.
As I was not at he discussion of the facts before the vote, it make it impossible to know the all the facts. As I'm not a whale as far as contributions, so I will never be asked to a event like this.
You may decides on how you would vote by some clip from this event, but I require more than a video.

"Obviously because of all the "boos" that followed the vote." the boos were for , you do not know because you were not at this event. Some may have wanted to expand the Amendments to include more or it could be a overcarry from some thing else. It may have been the last thing they were voting on, and they had other things they want to bring up.
As you and I was not at this event, we do not know.

Carlos Ponce

"As for being for or against this, I would have had to been there to know what was going on, to be able to decide how to vote."
OH, FOR PETE'S SAKE, JIM! The proposed Amendment is there in writing! All the FACTS are there in writing! How wishy-washy can you be?
It became part of the Democratic Party Platform.
If you're for one and not the other just say so. If the wording on one gives you problems say so.
I would have voted FOR it although I am not a Democrat. I'm a Conservative.
If you don't answer we must surmise you disagree with the inclusion of "God" in the first and despise Jerusalem and Israel in the second. If I'm wrong - tell us!

Jim Forsythe

At the ones were we set the Party Platform, we took at lot time in discussion groups (local level) . In the discussions, a lot of different points were made. This is what is missing. As this was September 5,why does it matter now?

Carlos Ponce

Since you WON'T answer we must surmise you disagree with the inclusion of "God" in the first and despise Jerusalem and Israel in the second. If I'm wrong - tell us!

Jarvis Buckley

Democrats will do anything to get elected. A young man named after
Robert Francis Kennedy called himself "Beto" to get the Hispanic
vote in Texas.
When he runs for president & he will.
It will be Robert Francis O'Rourke.
Just my thoughts......

Jim Forsythe

If he runs again for President, will it be as Rafael Cruz or Rafael Edward Cruz ?

Carlos Ponce

He'll run as Ted Cruz - name recognition, you know.

Jim Forsythe

Same as Beto will do.

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.