Art, I wish to offer you my heartfelt apologies. I know that you were anxiously awaiting the Bears signing Trey Smith to bolster your offensive line. Unfortunately, it appears as though KC has used the franchise tag on him. I guess there's still hope that y'all could trade for him.
I thought he'd have been gone. I think that 1 year #23 million is a decent deal for him, even though he'll earn more on the open market.
https://x.com/jamespleickhar2/status/1894816053840011387?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Body cams are the gift that keeps on giving. How can people be so stupid and self centered?
Why in the hell is Trump clearing the way for the Tate brothers to come back to the US?
FWIW, the only acceptable answer is that law enforcement will meet them immediately upon their entry and take them into custody pending charges.
If the goal of the Trump administration is to keep sex offenders out, then let's keep them all out.
Oh, and what in the hell is the house doing with their budget proposal? Why would they even bother to propose a budget that increases the deficit/debt while Trump is trying to lower it. Do they understand how out of touch they look? If nothing else, start from the opposite extreme, negotiate as needed, then blame the Dems for all the spending.
Oh, and what's up with all the idiots who don't understand that this is the first step in the budget process and not the final budget.
https://x.com/swipewright/status/1894449393853763994?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/swipewright/status/1894536808371032213?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
I don't agree with Wright on many things, but on this one he is correct.
https://x.com/thisisfoster/status/1894354679640826346?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Jesus ends His sermon with warnings and commands. He speaks of false prophets—men who claim to bring truth but spread lies. He warns of false brethren—people who say they serve God but live in lawlessness. And then He gives the parable of the two builders, or the two foundations. These men share three things in common and differ in three ways. Let’s consider their similarities first. Both Builders Hear the Word Jesus preached to a crowd—disciples, curious onlookers, even Pharisees. Many heard Him speak that day. Some would later shout, “Crucify Him.” Some would slink away, clutching their righteous robes, disturbed but unwilling to change. Some would chew on His words like a tough piece of meat, never quite swallowing. Hearing truth is not rare. The world itself preaches God’s glory and wrath. Psalm 19 says: "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." And Romans 1:18-20 tells us: "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness… His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived… So they are without excuse." God’s truth is like a siren, blaring across the earth: *A storm is coming. Take shelter.* Yet some dance in the streets, pretending the sound is just another melody in the background of their lives. Both Builders Build Every man is a builder. Some imagine a house as just a shelter, but in ancient times, a house meant more—it was a name, a family, a legacy. A dynasty or a hovel, depending on how the man built it. We still hear phrases like *House of Foster* or *Casa De Foster* to describe a family. The question isn’t whether you build, but what you build and for whom. The Sermon on the Mount is the King’s message to His kingdom. In Matthew 4:23, Jesus preaches the gospel of the kingdom. The sermon describes its citizens—their character, their influence, their priorities. It tells us where they store treasure, how they face trouble, how they pray, and how they forgive. It cuts deep, sharper than a plow through fallow ground. Everyone is building a kingdom. Judas built one. The Pharisees built one. So did everyone in that crowd. And some, with their good works and fine words, stacked bricks made of sand, fancy facades with nothing beneath them. Jesus says: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father." One day, every kingdom will be tested. And many will be found to be nothing but a thin shell, ready to crumble. Both Builders Face the Storm Rain falls. Floods rise. Winds blow. No one escapes. No one is exempt, not the devout nor the defiant. Scripture often uses storms as a picture of trial. Proverbs 1:26-27 says: "I will mock when terror strikes you, when terror strikes you like a storm and your calamity comes like a whirlwind." Trials are part of life. There are storms of sickness, financial collapse, broken relationships. Wars. House fires. Cancer. A sudden phone call in the middle of the night. The knock on the door from someone with a somber face. The world is full of storms. I remember the sky the day we learned our daughter had died. It was blue, bright, peaceful. The kind of sky that makes you think the world is a good place. And then a storm of a different kind rolled in. That’s life in a fallen world. One moment the sun is shining, and the next, the wind takes your feet out from under you. But storms are not only trials. They also symbolize judgment. Jeremiah 23:19 says: "Behold, the storm of the Lord! Wrath has gone forth, a whirling tempest; it will burst upon the head of the wicked." Zephaniah 1:14-16 describes God’s final reckoning: "A day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom." And Revelation 1:7 says: "Behold, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him." The storm comes for all. But not all will stand. The Three Differences First, though both hear, only one obeys. The foolish builder is a consumer of sermons, books, debates. He knows theology but does not live it. He is all head, no heart. Cheap talk. He gathers knowledge like someone hoards junk, piling it up, never using it. J.C. Ryle puts it plainly: "The wise builder… does not content himself with listening to exhortations to repent, believe, and live a holy life. He actually repents. He actually believes. He actually ceases to do evil and cleaves to what is good." True Christianity is practical. It changes a man. Ephesians 2:10 says: "We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." The wise builder follows the King’s commands. Second, their foundations are different. The fool builds on sand. He ignores God’s blueprint. His house may look strong. It may be grand. People may envy him. But the walls are hollow, the roof is paper-thin, and he doesn’t know it until the sky darkens and the wind picks up. The prophet Jeremiah asked: "Why does the way of the wicked prosper?" For a time, sand seems stable. The levees around New Orleans stood for years. Then Katrina came. All man-made blueprints fail in the storm. The wise builder follows God’s design. He builds on rock. Third, their fates are different. The storm tests them both. One stands. The other falls. The wise man’s house may be small, but trials strengthen him. Fire purifies gold. Hardship refines the faithful. He is prepared for the final judgment. And when he stands before the King, he will hear: "Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your master." The fool collapses. His religion was easy, and what costs little is worth little. Ryle again: "A religion which costs us nothing, and consists in nothing but hearing sermons—will always prove at last to be a useless thing." Jesus finished speaking. The crowd was astonished. "He taught them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes." The Pharisees could not preach like this. They were corrupt. Jesus was pure. He was the wise builder. He builds His church on the rock of His holiness. And she will stand in the storm."
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves..." A good sermon, like a good joke, needs a punch. A point. A landing that sticks. The Sermon on the Mount builds to its conclusion in Matthew 7:12. Jesus says, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” The Golden Rule. The whole law in one line. It is not about looking good. Not about proving yourself. It’s a mirror, and when you look into it, you see your sin plain as day. That’s why the sermon begins with, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Blessed are the ones who know they’re bankrupt. Blessed are the ones who mourn, not just for dead relatives but for their own soul, for the rottenness inside. Those are the ones who cry out for mercy. And they receive it. When Jesus says, “I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them,” He is cutting down every easy way out. The law is not tossed aside. It is good. It was always good. But men—especially religious men—twist it, mold it into something they can manage. The Pharisees took a holy fire and shrank it down to something they could hold in their hands without getting burned. They thought they were strict. In truth, they were soft. Jesus didn’t relax the law. He fulfilled it. Every word, every thought, every deed required—He did it. He is the perfect law-keeper, the only man who ever truly lived a righteous life. And then He laid it down for the unrighteous. Because of that, the righteousness of His people is not like the Pharisees’. Theirs was a mask. Theirs could be put on and taken off. True righteousness starts in the heart. And the heart is where sin begins. Murder doesn’t start with a knife—it starts with hate. Adultery isn’t in the bed first—it’s in the eyes. The Pharisees limited the law to the obvious, the external. But Jesus sees deeper. He doesn’t deal in surface-level sins. He cuts at the root. That is why He says, *“Enter by the narrow gate.”* The way to destruction is wide, easy. No one has to try to get there. You just drift. You follow the crowd, follow your heart, follow whatever feels good in the moment. The way to life is narrow, and few find it. And then comes the warning. The most dangerous men are not the ones who openly oppose Christ. They are the ones who use His name. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” False teachers are not ugly. They are not obvious. They are smooth. They are reasonable. They have big smiles, warm voices. They sound safe. They sound wise. And they lie. They tell people what they want to hear. They say, “Your sins are not so bad.” They say, *“God just wants you to be happy.” They say, “Who are we to judge?”* They tell the man in adultery that he is misunderstood, the greedy man that he is just ambitious, the drunk that he is merely wounded. They hold the Bible, quote it even, but always with a small adjustment, a little twist. People love it. Paul warned Timothy that a time would come when men would not endure sound teaching but would gather for themselves teachers who suit their own passions. That time has come and gone and come again. It never really left. A good sermon should sting. If it never makes you uncomfortable, never convicts, then it’s not the Word of God you’re hearing—it’s flattery. Some churches specialize in this. They smile too much. They tell too many stories where everything turns out just right. They make Jesus sound like a life coach. And then there are the others, the ones who latch onto a single doctrine like a tick and won’t let go. Everything is about the end times, or election, or one particular sin. They pretend they are rigorous, but they are just as narrow as the feel-good preachers—just in a different way. The only way to know the truth is to read it yourself. Not a verse here or there. Not a devotional with a happy little thought for the day. Read the whole thing. A chapter at a time, every day. No rush. No rules. Just the Word. Because false teachers thrive where the Bible is neglected. They also thrive in the church. Paul warned that they would rise from within, wolves among the flock. The church has always had them. Sometimes they start well but drift. They get a taste for applause, for acceptance. They soften. The world creeps in. And some are worse. Some are hiding their own sin. A preacher who always makes excuses for adultery? Look closer. A preacher who softens the commands of Scripture? Look at his life. It will all come out eventually. Because fruit doesn’t lie. Jesus said, “You will recognize them by their fruits.” Bad teaching produces bad lives. Sin always bears rotten fruit. It just takes time. False teachers have common traits. They grumble. They flatter. They manipulate. They want control. Some play the victim. They say the whole church is corrupt except for them. They offer a special knowledge, an insider’s take. Others tell people exactly what they want to hear. They build churches on positive thinking, on self-improvement, on the idea that God just wants you to be comfortable. Some even seem humble. They sound thoughtful, always “wondering” about the text, always finding some new angle. They never declare. They never stand firm. They plant doubt and call it nuance. They raise questions but never answer them. And the people love it, because it lets them keep their sin and their religion at the same time. False teachers are hard to remove. A church can tolerate them for years, letting them stay because they were once solid, once helpful. But fruit doesn’t lie. And bad fruit doesn’t turn good. The worst kind of false teacher is the one who deceives himself. Jesus said that many will come to Him saying, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name?” And He will say, “Depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness.” They thought they were righteous. They were not. It is not enough to know the truth. It must be lived. Some Christians spend their whole lives exposing false teachers but never examine themselves. They are vigilant, but not holy. They have the form of godliness, but not its power. So the real question is this: Are you walking the narrow road? Are you bearing good fruit? Do you love truth, not just in your head but in your life? False teachers lead people to hell. They make the way to destruction look easy. And it is. But the way to life is narrow. And it is worth it.
Michael Foster
Foster's focus on the parts of TSOTM which many progressive christians tend to ignore is refreshing.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1893480709697712243
https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/1893450663083888900?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
USAID’s Haiti scandal is staggering. The U.S. sent $4.4B after the 2010 earthquake—yet less than 2% reached Haitians, while 56% lined the pockets of D.C. firms. The Red Cross claimed to shelter 130,000 people—but built just SIX homes. No transparency. No accountability. USAID and NGOs refuse to answer where the money went—while Haitians were left with nothing.
A few years ago, I wrote expensively on the scandal surrounding US aid and the Clinton foundation after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. The fact that this hasn't been investigated and people haven't been held accountable is an absolute disgrace.
https://x.com/michaelrapaport/status/1893406871991566487?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1891860276481323047?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Hamas is a vile, evil, disgusting, group of people. To bring hostages (which they took and hold in violation of international law) to watch other hostages/bodies be sent home is beyond evil. To film this as a propaganda video is worse.
https://x.com/basedmikelee/status/1893369726543462507?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/connecticut-asks-congress-to-rethink-the-jones-act-maritime-roads-prices-1aa2dff6
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/to-help-puerto-rico-repeal-the-jones-act-fdca6af2
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear#
That this century old bit of protectionist legislation is still law and so harmful to the US is beyond comprehension. Trump should devote resources to repealing this law as opposed to shilling for a bunch of rich longshoremen and preventing US ports from becoming more efficient.
https://x.com/mrandyngo/status/1893340929068507562
This is what blue states use taxpayer dollars to support. I'm guessing Dan would approve.
"
"but I have so very little use for the human traditions of pie in the sky."
Obviously we have little specific idea of what this "pie in the sky" actually means, so it's hard to really understand. But, to suggest that the notion of some sort of afterlife, eternal life, that consists of eternal existence in the very presence of YHWH (in short heaven) is merely a "human tradition" is bizarre to say the least.
The obvious example is Jesus speaking to the thief on the cross, telling him "Today you will be with me in paradise.". I understand that by citing Jesus, in His humanity, it could be construed as a "human tradition", but Jesus was a unique human to say the least.
The rich young ruler asked what he had to do to inherit "eternal life" and Jesus gave him an answer, He didn't tell him that there was no such thing.
Luke 13:22-28 Jesus is clear that there will be people excluded from the "feast in the Kingdom of God", which doesn't seem to be construed as something to happen on earth.
In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus is clear that there is a "heaven" and that "heaven" is something to be emulated.
Matthew 3:16, 4:17, 11:25, 13:24, 16:1, 18:1, 19:23, 26:64, and 28:18
Mark 1:10, 8:11, 10:21, 14:62, and 16:19
Luke 3:21, 9:51, and 10:21
John 6:42 and 17:1
Acts 1:11 and 7:55
All of these verses refer to something, some place, or some state of existence that Jesus called "heaven" or the "Kingdom of Heaven". He seemed pretty intent on pointing people towards this Kingdom, and pretty confident that it was something or someplace beyond earth. He did pray that things on earth would emulate heaven, but doesn't seem to be suggesting that earth would replace of supplant heaven.
Revelation tells of a "new heaven and a new earth" where creation will be redeemed and where we will worship YHWH in His presence.
Believing as Jesus did that there is some form of existence, with Him, after death and that life on earth is not all that there is to existence, is not merely a "human tradition". It also isn't an excuse to avoid being the ambassadors of YHWH on earth and those who have the ability to bring some of what we'll find in heaven here to earth. While also realizing that our existence on earth is not our destiny, as has been said by others, our citizenship in in heaven even as we live our lives on earth.
Finally, no one knows what heaven is like specifically. We know that we will be in the presence of YHWH, and that we will worship Him. We know that not everyone who thinks they're best buds with Jesus will get it. We presume that it'll be better than earth given the lack of sickness, death, pain, crying, and the like and in YHWH's presence. It's probably wrong to focus solely on heaven and ignore the opportunities we have here on earth to participate in YHWH's plans and purposes, yet it's probably equally wrong to focus solely on our earthly existence and ignore the promise of heaven.
"So since so many Europeans and US Galaxy Brains are worried about Trump caving to Russia and Europe not being at the big boy table, let me give my European friends some advice on how you could flip the table, gain leverage, and become a player again: 1. Massive arms package to Ukraine including flooding the zone with the most advanced weaponry. 2. Make public multilateral statement that no matter what the US does, Europe will work with and aid Ukraine in its defense against aggression of sovereign borders 3. Layout a path to European Union membership that includes the full Ukrainian borders 4. Deployment of individual European state forces to Baltics and other similar states for training and assistance purposes All of a sudden, Europe has blown up anything Trump has done and forced his hand making any deal he strikes with Putin irrelevant. I doubt Europe will do anything but issue a press release promising to create a committee which will explore the issue and form another committee to write a white paper. However, if you want to be relevant, do something like this."
Anonymous
With all of the hoopla around Trump trying to work on ending the war in Ukraine, it seems like Europe has dropped the ball once again. This is in their backyard, and they've been expecting the US to shoulder much of the burden in this conflict which has little to do with US national interest IMO. (Obviously, invading other countries is bad and should be dealt with, but maybe it shouldn't always be the US)
It doesn't help that both Puttin and Zelensky are unlikable, autocrats who are not strangers to corruption. It certainly doesn't help that Zelensky seems to think that the US owes Ukraine unlimited, unaccountable funding in perpetuity. In this case, neither side is really the "good guys", although Ukraine is clearly the less bad of the two, by a significant margin.
Having said that, if the EU grew a pair and engaged in the actions above things might look different. Trump might be a minor player, on the sidelines encouraging the EU to solve problems in Europe. What a concept.
This isn't the Cold War and Russia isn't the power that it used to be. Even this relatively small conflict has significantly strained the Russian economy and military. The EU (with support from the US) could absolutely stand against Russian aggression if needed.
The EU, for too long, has assumed that the US would (once again) come to their aid and spend massive amounts of money to defend Europe. To the point where it could be argued that the US defense spending for Europe allows the EU countries to cut their defense establishment and use that money for all the socialist goodies they pass out. Trump is absolutely right that Europe should pay their fair share (one time the DFL isn't howling about a fair share) for their own defense. The US should absolutely seek to minimize our military footprint in Europe and mostly limit it to propositioned equipment storage.
It's been 80 years since the end of WW2 and the US spent vast amounts of money rebuilding Europe and Japan after the war, along with building much of the materiel and equipment used by the Allies to win. Maybe it's time for Europe to stop depending on US taxpayers to subsidize them, and to stand up and deal with problems in their own backyard.
https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/20/found-2-billion-in-taxpayer-money-earmarked-for-stacey-abrams-linked-group/
I don't care how much you hate DOGE, Elon, or Trump. If you can't muster up any outrage over this transparent attempt to scam the feds, by someone who wants to hold office, you are simply too partisan to take seriously.
Why in the hell is Trump wasting time trying to impose his will on the NYC congestion pricing system? Like it, don't like it, I don't care. But things like this are literally the epitome of an issue best handled by a local government, not the federal government. At one point, the conservative/Republican position was the the reach of the federal government should be smaller, not larger. I guess that's not the case any more.
What in the name of all that is holy are Trump and Elon talking about with their talk of sending a $5,000 check to everyone in the country with DOGE "savings"?
Look, I am all in on cutting the size of the federal government. I am 100% behind getting rid of the lifers who do as little as possible, rake in the high end of the GS pay scale, and are just hanging on for their 30 and a bigger lifetime pension. I'm all for cutting waste, fraud and abuse. I don't even care if they maybe err on the side of cutting a little too much, it can always be added back if necessary. But $5,000 checks to 330,000,000 people when there is no possible way to get that cash except by increasing the deficit/debt, screw that. Conservatives complained about the COVID stimulus checks, but this is much worse and just a stupid attempt to play by the DFL vote buying rule book.
Instead of a one time $5,000 check (believe me, I could find some great uses for $5,000), I freaking want to ease the debt burden on our grandchildren and great grandchildren. I don't want short term pleasure at the cost of long term pain, I want them to do what they promised and cut the deficit and work to lower the debt.
$1,650,000,000,000. That's how much $5,000 x 330,000,000 is. If there's really that much savings, then pay down the long term debt.
There's a narrative on the left that somehow these recent airplane crashes are directly related to Trump. Yet, the NTSB data suggests that crashed were significantly higher during the same period of Biden's first term.
We've had two significant air crashes in 2025, which seems like a lot. It could be that flying is not a zero risk endeavour and the the odds finally caught up (1:11,000,000) and we had a couple close together.
What is interesting about both of these crashes is the lack of information about the flight crews being released. This lack of transparency about the flight crews has certainly led to lots of speculation about the makeup and competency of the pilots. Obviously the speculation could have been minimized by releasing the information, but it wasn't. So when people look at the social media presence of Endeavor Air (the operators of the Delta regional flight) it seems reasonable to question the make up of the flight crew and whether or not the pilots might have been promoted due to factors other than strictly competence. That the cause of the crash seems to be pilot error leading to a landing so hard as to destroy one side of the landing gear, it seems like the pilots qualifications might be important. It is possible that this was a maintenance issue and the the landing gear just collapsed due to negligence or some other reason. If this is the case, then likewise it would be valuable to have information about those who did the maintenance.
Given the fact that this most recent crash was in Canada, it's possible that the Canadian version of the FAA/NTSB might do things differently and more slowly. Unfortunately, the longer they wait, the more speculation there will be.
Dan regularly complains that I won't spoon feed (my term) him resources for things. Well back on October 16th of 2017 (https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2017/10/origins.html) I posted the following. It's a list of resources to support the arguments regarding the origin of everything. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Dan has read, studied, or critiqued precisely zero of these resources. FYI the comments are full of additional resources. Strangely enough, Dan stayed silent.
Hypothetical.
If the child of a former president was getting annual funding for USAID since the Obama administration for providing one meal per day to children in Africa, India, and Bangladesh, at a cost of $1,410 per meal, should that hypothetical funding be reallocated to another person/organization that could feed the same number of children for say $10/meal? Should the federal government audit this person/charity, or simply pull funding?
Would it make any difference if the person in question had a hypothetical net worth (with spouse) of almost $200,000,000?
Personally, if someone with a net worth of almost $200,000,000 was receiving millions yearly to do so little "charity", I'd cut the cord immediately. There's no way private donors would support something this inefficient, but the feds just keep handing out cash.
The Sermon on the Mount is one of the scriptural passages that progressive christians love to cherry pick and use to support their social agenda. Often choosing to ignore the non temporal aspects of this sermon, in favor of proof texting their commitment to secular social justice.
But, as with many of Jesus' teachings there are parts that get ignored.
"Towards the end of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus gives warning after warning. The final one is sharp. Not everyone who calls Him Lord will enter the kingdom. Some will stand before Him, listing their works—preaching, casting out demons, performing miracles. But Jesus will say, “I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.” It is a gut punch. A moment of reckoning. Jesus has been clear. The easy road leads to destruction. The hard road leads to life. Few find it. Wolves come dressed as sheep. They sound right. They look right. They deceive others. But the greatest danger is not false teachers. It is self-deception. False teachers lie to you. False believers lie to themselves. There are liars in the pulpit and liars in the pews. Jesus contrasts two types of people: those who say and those who do. Not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter, but the one who does the will of the Father. Their profession is orthodox in words, but false in life. They call Him Lord, and He is. Their theology is correct, but their hearts are far from Him. They are passionate, saying “Lord, Lord.” They emphasize it, repeat it, speak with fervor. Passion is good, but passion is not proof. They point to their public works—prophesying, casting out demons, miracles. They were known. Respected. Successful. But their success was no sign of salvation. Apparent spiritual activity does not equal spiritual reality. God is so good that He sometimes works through the hands of evil men. Judas preached. Judas performed signs. Judas cast out demons. The disciples returned amazed—“Even the demons are subject to us in your name!” Jesus replied, “Do not rejoice that the spirits obey you. Rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” That’s the key. Not the works. Not the words. The name written in heaven. Jesus ends with His own public declaration: “I never knew you.” Imagine hearing those words. Not “You lost your way.” Not “I used to know you.” But “I never knew you.” They were never His. They were in the house of God but not in the family of God. Their faith was a performance, a self-deception, a lie. Goats look like sheep. But goats do not follow the Shepherd. They follow their hunger, their will. They are stubborn, self-willed, independent. They think they are His. They are not. This is a warning against trusting in outward things—in right words, right affiliations, right actions—while your heart remains unchanged. The danger is real. A man can be a preacher, a miracle worker, a missionary, and still be unknown by Christ. A church can be full of passionate people, reciting creeds, singing psalms, preaching truth—and still be a wreck. Because saying isn’t doing. Passion isn’t proof. Success isn’t salvation. In the end, there will be two kinds of people—those who do the will of the Father, and those who only say they do. The question is not merely, Do you call Him Lord?" The question is, "Does He know you?"m Lord?" The question is, "Does He know you?""
Reverend Michael Foster
Personally, I question whether anyone who anchors their theology/worldview in their own personal experience and feelings would probably get a no on that last question.
From Luke 13, "23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
26 “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
27 “But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’"
Jesus literally tells people who "ate and drank" with Him that they are "evildoers". This passage makes me wonder about all of the people who's big takeaway from Jesus' earthly ministry was that He "ate and drank" with sinners would say when Jesus' then calls them "evildoers".
It is undeniable that Jesus spent time with sinners, the question is what did He do with that time and how did the sinners respond. This seems to indicate that Jesus probably told them to "sin no more", or to follow Him through the "narrow gate", yet they chose the path that is wide and leads to destruction. They though that hanging out with Jesus was enough, Jesus calls them "evildoers". FYI, these aren't necessarily the Pharisees or the other usual bad guys in the progressive eisegesis world. They're the regular folks that Jesus "ate and drank" with.
Dan made much ado about Trump being overturned by a couple of lower court judges and demanded that everyone make definitive claims about how they would respond of SCOTUS finds against Trump. Well, let's see if his reverence for the judiciary is still what it was, and let's see his support for the more recent rulings on Trump's actions.
https://www.beaufortcountynow.com/post/86714/massive-conflict-of-interest-found-on-anti-trump-federal-judge.html
https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/judge-mcconnells-daughter-catherine-works-in-education-department-elon-musk-sparks-row-article-118156678
https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/mcconnell-is-unqualified-to-sit-on-the-federal-bench-in-rhode-island/
https://x.com/america1stlegal/status/1891226933481877590?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So the states that sued Trump decided to venue shop to find a friendly judge, well known as a highly partisan democrat, who would find in their favor on their initial motion. That doesn't really sound like the way that an impartial judicial system should be engaged in cases of this import.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-declines-block-musks-doge-from-accessing-data-firing-employees
I'm sure that Dan will be applauding this judicial decision because of his reverence for the judicial system.
https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/17/call-your-senators-and-ask-them-to-vote-against-lori-chavez-deremer/
I'm not going to waste time reiterating WK's points about this Trump's cabinet picks. I am going to note that it's these sorts of actions that convince me that every president needs to be be judged on individual actions, choices, and words when they don't align with the principles espoused during the campaign or with the majority of his supporters. One only hopes that the GOP and conservatives can force Trump to make a better choice.
Dan posted about not being used by users, which seems reasonable. However, when it comes to politicians, I'd argue that any politician who amasses vast personal wealth while allegedly engaged in public service is the very worst kind of user. We see plenty of examples of members of congress using their insider knowledge to make millions in the stock market. We see people regularly manage to amass tens of millions of dollars wile earning less than $200,000 a year. I'm suggesting that those who pardon family members who've engaged in influence peddling, or who've engaged in spreading lies about political opponents, are also users.
I'm not advocating for users, I am suggesting that to focus on one or two users (especially one whose net worth dropped while in office), while remaining silent on a multitude of others is probably driven by partisan hatred than by principle.
There's a meme going around about how the US aid freeze caused a 71 year old woman t die because she ran out of oxygen.
I guess I'm confused as to why the US is somehow responsible to provide oxygen for people from Myanmar who are in Thailand. Since when is this burden solely on US taxpayers?
Strangely enough, the NGO (if your NGO can't operate without G funding, are you really an NGO?) had almost $1.4 billion dollars in revenue in FY 2023. In 2023 they reported having $630 million in assets, including $169 million in cash. It seems strange that the US taxpayer is funding a non-profit NGO to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, primarily to import "refugees" into the US. Also, strangely enough, their top 5 employees salaries are almost $3 million/year. They also have a reported stock/investment portfolio of nearly $100 million dollars. It seems like they probably could have managed to buy an oxygen tank or two while they're waiting for more US taxpayer funds.
https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1889724242628944195?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
I think that there is a lot of Truth to this. I believe that most people tend to identify with and try to recreate certain things or times when they felt significant. In this case, I think that it's why everything is cast as a "civil rights" issue, and why everything is compared to "race". Where I think the problem lies is in not acknowledging that things are different now, that things have improved, and that there might be other alternative ways to achieve ones' goal. Maybe it's possible to move toward living in 2025, not 1963.
Another meme that's making the rounds is that the government is buying a bunch of Teslas. What's being ignored is that this purchase was finalized in 2024 long before Trump became president. So, those making it a political payback should probably shut up Is this purchase the best possible use of taxpayer funds, who knows, but that's the only potential argument against it
https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/12/wikipedia-co-founder-who-holds-phd-in-philosophy-returns-to-christianity/
I regularly hear people, both Christian and non, claiming that there are no good arguments for Christianity. That somehow they have exhaustively examined every argument and found them wanting for some objective reason. Then we see stories like this, where well educated non believers actually examine the arguments/evidence and realize that there are good arguments for things like the existence of YHWH. Personally, I think that it's laziness that makes people draw these conclusions. Primarily laziness in thinking that whatever answers they sought several decades ago have not changed with the times. I understand that it's easier to form one's opinions decades ago, then just pretend as if nothing has changed or that new information doesn't exist, I just don't find it compelling.
I've noticed something recently that is interesting, and probably bipartisan. Although I'm currently seeing if from the left.
It's that they are reflexively overreacting to almost everything Trump is doing and looking to the courts for salvation.
What I'm not seeing is an acknowledgement that they totally blew the 2024 election. That their going all in on Biden, then throwing him under the bus and going all in on Harris, might have been part of the reason why Trump won.
Maybe replacing an old white guy with dementia with a "black" woman who'd never gotten a significant number of votes on a national election and who sucks at communicating was a bad strategy. Maybe continuing the practice of rigging primaries in favor of the anointed one is a bad idea.
Maybe, just maybe, y'all bear some responsibility for the situation you find yourselves in. Maybe losing elections does have consequences, and maybe that is just how things work.
Trump chooses who to lead the Office of Faith Relations? Really, of all of the orthodox non heretical Christian leaders around he chooses who?
I have my problems with the whole concept personally. History suggests that every time the Church gets too cozy with the government, that it is the Church that ends up losing. Scripture tells us that the Church will prevail and that the "gates of hell" cannot stop it. In short, the Church does not need the protection of the government to fulfill it's mission.
What I expect from the US government is "fair and equal" treatment under the law for all religions.
What I don't want is a president who doesn't appear to have any significant faith himself appointing a false teacher to protect the Church. As we see in places like Iran, the Church seems to do pretty well without government protection.
Given the fact that the last few half time shows have skewed in the same direction, how about a list of other performers in other genres who should get a shot. I'm open to suggestions. FYI. I'm biased toward people who actually sing and play instruments. This is my list of worthy performers, many of whom I don't particularly like, but still think could be good.
Earth Wind and Fire
Garth Brooks
Brad Paisley
Taylor Swift
Bon Jovi
Def Leppard
Queen/Lambert
Tyler Bryant and the Shakedown
Gary Clark Jr
Styx
Sammy Hagar
The Eagles
Chris Stapleton
Foo Fighters
Green Day
Lionel Richie/Commodores
Cheap Trick
Little Big Town
Miranda Lambert
Carrie Underwood
Shania Twain
Kieth Urban
Some combination of Run/DMC, Sugarhill gang, and Grandmaster Flash.
No Doubt/Gwen Stefani
Muse
Coldplay
There has been quite a bit of talk about the SB halftime show from last Sunday. For some strange reason, a bunch of old while liberal men are obsessed with proving their left wing credentials by coming up with reasons why it was bad to not like Kendrick Lamar's show. Their starting place is that those who didn't like it are racist.
I'm going to start with the obvious. I (and virtually everyone else on the planet) do not like all types of music or artists in various genres equally, and that is perfectly acceptable.
Further, I tend to prefer music with at least a minimal level of melody and lyrics that I can understand. Again, this is a perfectly acceptable position to take on a subject as subjective as music.
Do I hat all rap/hip hop, no. Do I hate all black artists, no. Did I find Kendrick Lamar's halftime show to be boring, unintelligible, and un entertaining, yes.
As I've done a few shows over the last few years, I've come to realize that the goal in putting together a set list (for the most part) is to be as entertaining as possible for the maximum number of people. Sometimes that means ignoring the music nerd inside of us, and picking songs people know and like instead of some obscure/cool b side.
I understand that Lamar has lots of downloads, which may or may not be the most accurate measure of popularity, and that's fine. To each their own. I also understand that the SB halftime show is not about pandering to people in my demographic. This seemed like a "FU" to anyone who's not a Lamar fan. Again, that's cool, but don't pretend like those of us who tuned it out are de facto racists because we did.
I think what made it worse is that the game was in NOLA, which has its own rich and diverse music culture and they couldn’t get The Meters, more of Trombone Shorty, or even a single Neville brother.
Lots of hand wringing about the pause/audit of USAID over the past couple of days. The strangest complaints are from Christian ministries about getting funding cut. Why would a secular US government be funding Christian Ministries in the first place? Why would Christian ministries want government funding and all of the restrictions that come with it?
As we see some of the idiocy that USAID has been funding to the tune of millions/billions of dollars, I'm mystified that people are upset about auditing USAID and not upset about some of the bullshit they've wasted taxpayer money on.
It's almost like folx on the left are against actually being aware of what taxpayer's hard earned dollars are spent on, and eliminating those expenditures that are stupid. Personally that seems like a losing position.
"Self Determination"
"self-determination, the process by which a group of people, usually possessing a certain degree of national consciousness, form their own state and choose their own government."
"The UN Charter clarifies two meanings of the term self-determination. First, a state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Second, the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state. Both meanings have their basis in the charter (Article 1, paragraph 2; and Article 55, paragraph 1). With respect to dependent territories, the charter asserts that administering authorities should undertake to ensure political advancement and the development of self-government (Article 73, paragraphs a and b; and Article 76, paragraph b)."
Encyclopedia Britannica
" Self determination means that all people have the right to direct their futures; have control over how they live their lives, where, and with whom; and have authority over the resources that support them.
https://portal.ct.gov/dds/searchable-archive/selfadvocacyselfdetermination/self-determination-fact-sheets/self-determination-principles?language=en_US
I've heard it argued, by Dan and only Dan, that "self determination" requires that every human has the right to roam unfettered across the globe and to live wherever they choose with no restrictions on their movement or settling. Strangely enough, I haven't been able to find any source that agrees with Dan on this.
The other day, Trump made some statements about Gaza. One thing he mentioned was moving those who live in Gaza into other Arab countries where they could theoretically be assimilated. This got me thinking about why Dan refuses to apply his hunch about self determination to any other country besides the US. He expect that the US will accept tens of millions of people, without virtually no regulation or management, simply because those people want to live here. (ignoring what a racist, xenophobic, hellhole the DFL paints the US as) It seems reasonable to ask, why not demand this same accommodation everywhere?
Back to the history of the Middle East. Between 1945 and 1948, the international community recognized the need for a Jewish state and partitioned and proposed the first 2 state solution. In 1948 the Arab world united against the newly formed state of Israel and engaged in a war bent on the total eradication of both Israel and every Israeli citizen. As part of their campaign the Arabs promised Muslims who left Israel that they would get the first shot at getting their property back and at plundering the Jews. Unfortunately the Arabs were militarily incompetent and failed miserably, leaving them with all of the people they encouraged to leave Israel, with promise of plunder. Their response to this situation was to declare these people "palestinians" and put them in camps that were not fit for human habitation. They used these conditions as the basis to radicalize the "palestinians", into various terrorist groups. Since then the "palestinian" insistence on eliminating Israel and their refusal to accept a 2 state solution has caused the problem to grow.
Fast forward to 2025. Hamas (a terrorist group) controls Gaza, and Egypt (a Muslim/Arab country) has a wall to prevent those in Gaza from entering Egypt. To this day, no other Arab nation has stepped up to accept these "palestinians" as immigrants. Instead they've created this false narrative that "Palestine" was an actual nation and that Israel has occupied the nation of "Palestine" and must be removed by any means fair or foul.
Which brings us back to the question. Why does Dan not ever call for those in Gaza to be able to exercise their right and move to any of the Arab countries that displaced them in the first place? Why is Dan silent on the evil of Egypt in constructing a massive wall to keep those in Gaza from availing themselves of the bounty of Egypt?
I know what his answer will be. Yet, if "self determination" is truly a universal human right, why not advocate and fight for it everywhere it is being denied? Why limit oneself to only one country?
I have a feeling that I'll be writing these posts every so often over the next few years. But, what in the hell is Trump doing? Why in the world would he seemingly, seriously, suggest that the US take over Gaza, kick the population out, and bulldoze if to build resorts?
I completely understand that Gaza is a disaster for those who live there as well as for their neighbors, and the world. Why in the hell would a president who's campaigned on staying out of wars, champion a policy that likely leads to armed conflict? If the Muslim nations of the Middle East can't or won't use their billions to offer help to those who share their faith, why would the US get involved?
Yes, the Arab nations should have accepted those who they forced out of Israel when they invaded in 1948. Yes, they should have taken them, given them citizenship and assimilated them instead of putting them in refugee camps, and treating them like pariahs. Yes, the Arab world should be investing in Gaza to build something good for the people, not funneling billions to Hamas to engage in terrorism. Yes, the Arab world should be eradicating Hamas, instead of encouraging them. No, the US should not unilaterally go into Gaza and bulldoze the place.
Trump's Greenland thing makes some sense. The US can develop the natural resources in Greenland and use those beneficially. Hell, if Trump suggested surrounding Port au Prince and eradicating the gangs and drug traffickers tearing things down and starting over, I might not reflexively oppose that. At least partially because Haiti has the theoretical potential to be a reasonably well functioning state with an economy based on tourism, Gaza doesn't.
This is what is so frustrating about Trump. He's started off strong and is doing what he was elected to do. But for some reason he can't stop himself from saying things like this and stirring up controversy.
Don't get me wrong. Cleaning out Gaza of Hamas and it's terrorist sympathizers, and starting over, is not a categorically bad idea. The US doing so unilaterally, is.
Over the last few days we've seen plenty of coverage of immigrants, both legal and not, protesting the recant increase in enforcement of immigration law. What I've seen and wondered about is why the protesters are flying the flags of the countries that are so dangerous and inhospitable that they claim they were compelled to leave and enter the US without following US law. Beyond that, they're also burning the US flag. What in the world is this? You'd think that at some point, even the most hardcore open borders fanatics would be annoyed at the optics of these protests.
Why this hits me is that it emphasizes a point I've been making about immigrants assimilating. For decades the goal of immigrants was to assimilate into US culture. The US is fairly unique in that our culture is not defined by a specific race or ethnic group. The US has always been about assimilation and building a culture that is more than the sum of it's parts. Yet rallying under the flags of the places that people have left, to protest US immigration laws, seems to suggest that assimilation is the furthest things from their minds.
