Since I’m going to be hearing this for the next 6 months as a Texas voter, let me answer the question:
“You would vote for an adulterer over James Talarico? That’s not very Christian.”
Here’s the truth: I would rather vote for almost anyone else who is going to at least advocate for conservative *policies* over a literal heretic who wears my faith like a skin suit, advocates for policies that harm children, endorses immorality and generally harm society.
Ken Paxton has personal baggage. I don’t deny that. But Talarico has plenty too — and he openly mocks God’s law and treats Jesus as a political mascot all while pushing a radical far-left agenda that would be a disaster for my state.
You see, I’m an adult. I do not expect those who are seeking political office to be my moral superiors or even trustworthy. They are tools to be used to do the least amount of damage via policy.
I wish more pastors and men who live godly lives were running. I really do. But the options we get are what they are.
Paxton supports secure borders, law enforcement, lower taxes, unleashing American energy, the Second Amendment, just to name a few.
Talarico supports unlimited abortion, trans-ing children, higher taxes, government-run “healthcare,” and is incredibly comfortable blaspheming the word of God.
I’m not voting for a priest. I’m voting for an imperfect person to represent my interests. That’s how it works.
You’re not going to guilt trip Texans into supporting a looney tunes candidate like Talarico. Paxton will win by 5+.
It’s about policy, not personality.
Scientists mapped a piece of brain the size of half a grain of rice.
One-millionth the size of the human brain.
It took them a year and over 1.4 million gigabytes to scan it.
They found over 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses, and even some new structures they didn't know existed.
Mapping the entire human brain in this level of detail would require all the data storage generated on Earth in a year + a 140-acre data center.
But the human brain itself can hold up to ~2.5 million gigabytes of information - enough for ~3 million hours of HD video or 342 years of continuous viewing.
It can process roughly 10 quadrillion calculations per second - enough processing power to run over 4,000 high-end gaming PCs all operating at peak ability.
And it only runs on the amount of power needed for a single dim light bulb.
No technology even comes close to doing what the brain can do.
The more we learn about biology, the more complex it becomes.
This is God's Glory on display.
@1Password Every minute, I have to enter my 1Password password to unlock it. It's inconvenient, inefficient, and annoying. It's been 18 hours since I reached out to 1Password support. No response. Are there effective alternative apps with better customer service? #1Password
Here’s where you and they are: we enjoy the privilege of enjoying God’s grace. Eternal life with God, not because we earned it, but because we trust that Christ paid the price in full. They are trapped and burdened by works. Their leaders lie to them.
1. 2 Corinthians 5:14 The love of God compels you to share the Gospel with them. An opportunity for people who are trapped to hear the word that might set them free. That’s awesome!
2. It’s your responsibility to share the Gospel. It’s not your responsibility to persuade them. Meaning, you fumbling doesn't make sense, since it’s not up to you to convince them. John 16. Sin. Righteousness. Judgment. Sounds like the Gospel to me. Sin: they need a savior. Righteousness: Jesus accomplished it on the cross. Judgment: trust Jesus for salvation, or accept condemnation as the price for sin, just like the devil. John 16:8-10 “And when the Holy Spirit comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.” You share the Gospel. The Holy Spirit: he convicts. You were faithful. Trust God.
I am so encouraged by your love and boldness in sharing with Jehovah's Witnesses. God bless you!
Paid customer locked out of my account for days. The initial support ticket was four days ago on Tuesday. Provided receipts and order numbers. Still no resolution. @carrd, this is unacceptable for a paying customer. Requesting immediate resolution or a full refund.
Carrd's customer service is invisible. If you’re thinking of setting up a platform or landing website. Neocities and Venturz are alternatives to Carrd. Neocities doesn’t seem to offer much customer service, but it’s free. Venturz is definitely a better option. More versatile than Carrd. Their customer service is not invisible. The chat is available online. Plus, they are known to respond almost instantly to inquiries.
https://t.co/HeRPJZGivs. Ouch! Definition: intelligence: mental acuteness. Acute: reacting readily to stimuli or impressions; sensitive. Artificial intelligence makes sense when there is an agent that can readily respond to the customer’s concern and inquiry. The response should be relevant and somewhat prompt. Companies are ditching their customer service department with the hope that AI, email, and chat will save a lot of money. My account is fully paid for. I’ve been trying for the last six hours to gain access. All to no avail. I finally received an email from them after four hours. I responded within a minute. Answered their question. Sent several follow-ups. Two hours later: still no response. That is not acute, and it is definitely not artificially mimicking mental acuteness.
Free with a cost. I've been locked out of my account, which is completely paid for. Email support should respond quickly, since there is no phone number for customer support. Yet, it has been hours and zero response. I need access as soon as possible. Yet I'm captive to poor customer support.
It was malpractice and intentional. The Des Moines Register and the rest of the legacy media have zero credibility. They have become the propaganda arm of the DNC. I used to deliver and subscribe to the NY Times a long time ago. The last time I bought the paper was when my grocery store ran out of toilet paper. Next election season, I'm reading the comics in lieu of reading her poll. Ann Selzer is a disgrace.
2020 PA exit polls were R+1 (D/R/I, 40/41/19). This poll has it D+1 (D/R/I, 45/44/12). If you adjust it by two points, Trump's in the lead. I'm convinced that Independent/Other will favor Trump, making it a more significant lead. Some pollsters are not concerned with reading the electorate but writing the narrative.
Also from David:
Who can discern his errors?
Declare me innocent from hidden faults.
Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless,
and innocent of great transgression.
Psalm 19:12-13
That you should be the cry of our hearts.
Agreed! Let's compare those to David's lyrics:
Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting!
Psalm 139:23-24
A song came on when I started my car today and reminded me why I don’t listen to Christian music stations anymore…
“The truth is I am my Father's child
I make Him proud and I make Him smile
I was made in the image of a perfect King
He looks at me and wouldn't change a thing”
Wouldn’t change a thing, really??? 😬
Wow! Sobering. Truth is your product. It's like In-N-Out Burgers saying, "Making burgers is a distraction that gets in the way." And the peril in journalism is that what you replace truth with is not a multiple-choice option. You end up switching from reporting the truth to pushing propaganda. We live in dangerous times, and we must deem George Orwell a prophet.
FLASHBACK: While the legacy media propaganda machine throttles up as the election nears, this clip from the NPR CEO is a handy reminder of how that machine runs:
“Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that's getting in the way of getting things done."
Yesterday, Donald J. Trump nearly lost his life. An armed gunman waited for him in the bushes. He brought a go-pro camera to record it. A secret service agent spotted the barrel of a gun through a fence and shot at the gunman. The gunman fled. He was caught. And now we slowly learn about him and his motive.
President Trump is my running mate, and my friend, but he is more importantly a father and grandfather to people who love him very much. I want him to have many more years with his family. (And selfishly, I'd like many more with my own.)
I admire the president for calling for peace and calm. The rhetoric is out of control. It nearly got Steve Scalise and many others killed a few years ago. It nearly got Donald Trump killed twice. But I want to say something about yesterday's news, and how it illuminates the difference between vigorous debate and violent rhetoric.
Here is what we know so far: Kamala Harris has said that "Democracy is on the line" in her race against President Trump. The gunman agreed, and used the exact same phrase. He had a Kamala Harris bumper sticker on his truck. He was obsessed with Ukraine's "fight for Democracy" and absorbed many unhinged views about the Russia-Ukraine war. HIs name is Ryan Routh, and he donated 19 times to Democrat causes and zero to Republican ones.
How do you think the Democrats and their media allies would respond if a 19-time Republican donor tried to kill a Democratic official? It's a question that answers itself. For years, Kamala Harris's campaign surrogates have said things like "Trump has to be eliminated." And how have their media allies responded to the second assassination attempt on Donald Trump in as many months?
NBC News called the attempted assassination a "golf club incident." The LA Times told us "Trump Targeted at Golf Club." The USA Today's top of the fold headline is "Hope in America," and they published a preposterous letter to the editor arguing that Trump "brings these assassination attempts on himself." CNN's Dana Bash--who just yesterday bizarrely accused me of inciting a bomb threat--said today that Harris campaign rhetoric didn't motivate Routh even though he echoed their rhetoric explicitly.
PBS's weekend show perfectly illustrates the double standard of Kamala Harris's media friends. After spending 30 seconds on the second assassination attempt on President Trump, they then focused on the real danger: me and President Trump, who are, according to them, personally responsible for bomb threats against Springfield. Of course, I repeatedly condemend those threats. And reports today suggest they came from a foreign country, not--as the media suggested--a deranged Trump fan.
The double standard is breathtaking. Donald Trump and I are, by their account, directly responsible for bomb threats from foreign countries. Why? Because we had the audacity to repeat what residents told us about the problems in their town. Meanwhile, Harris allies call for Trump to be eliminated as the media publishes arguments that he deserved to be shot.
This seems like a double standard. But at a deep level, it is entirely consistent.
Consider Springfield. Citizens are telling us that there are problems. These include the undeniable truths of higher car accidents, unaffordable housing, evictions of residents, overcrowded hospitals, overstressed schools, and rising rates of disease. They also include the infamous pet stories--which, again, multiple people have spoken about (either on video or to me or my staff).
Kamala Harris's first strategy was to ignore these people and their concerns. Yes, she had prevented the deportation of millions of illegal aliens, and some of them made their way to Springfield. But it was a small town with no voice. Some of the local leadership even loved the cheap labor. So the suffering of thousands of American citizens went ignored.
Their next move with these stories is censorship. In Springfield, a psychopath (or a foreign government) calls in a bomb threat, so they blame that on President Trump (and me). The threat of violence is disgraceful of course, yet the media seems to relish it. They cover a bomb threat, but not the rise in murders. They cover the threat, but not the HIV uptick. They cover the threat, not the schools overwhelmed with new kids who don't speak English. They cover the threat, not rising insurance rates or the car accidents that caused them. They cover the threat, not the failures of Kamala Harris's leadership.
The purpose is not to turn down the rhetoric. If anything, covering the bomb threats gives whoever makes them exactly what he wants: attention. The purpose is distraction and shame. How dare you talk about the problems of Haitian migration in Springfield? You're endangering people, simply by discussing the problems of Kamala Harris's policies. It's a form of moral blackmail, designed not to make anyone safe but to shut everyone up.
Springfield is the most recent, but hardly the most egregious example. There was the Hunter Biden laptop story, censored by BigTech. And who can forget that anyone who didn't support Kamala Harris's Ukraine policy was drenched in the blood of Ukrainian children. That last one appears to have had some effect on Routh--the most recent would-be assassin. The message is always the same: don't you dare express an opinion on the public affairs of your nation. The message is: shut up.
This is the difference between debate--even aggressive debate--and censorship. It is one thing to attack Kamala Harris for "destroying the country" and quite another to say that President Trump should be "eliminated." It is one thing to criticize overheated rhetoric, and another to say that a former president has invited an assassination on himself. It is one thing to say that Donald J. Trump's arguments about the election of 2020 are wrong; it is another thing to attempt to remove him from the ballot over it.
It is one thing to say that pets are not, in fact being eaten, and another thing to say that anyone who disagrees is trying to murder people. Dissent, even vigorous dissent, is a great tradition of the United States. Censorship is not.
For the next 7 weeks of this campaign, I will vigorously defend your right to speak your mind. I believe you have every right to criticize me and Donald J. Trump, even if you say terrible or untrue things about us. But when I ask you to "tone down the rhetoric" it's not about being nice--our citizens have every right to be mean, even if I don't like it--or empty platitudes.
Instead, I'm asking all of us to reject censorship. Reject the idea that you can control what other people think and say. Embrace persuasion of your fellow citizens over silencing them--either through the powers of Big Tech or through moral blackmail.
I think this will make our public debate much better. But there's something else. Reject censorship and you reject political violence. Embrace censorship, and you will inevitably embrace violence on its behalf.
The reason is simple. The logic of censorship leads directly to one place, for there is only one way to permanently silence a human being: put a bullet in his brain.
We are witnessing a complete failure of both American diplomacy and deterrence in the Mideast.
The Houthis just launched a hypersonic missile against Tel Aviv.
Hamas, emboldened by US waffling, refused to accept any US deals. Hezbollah refused to stop sending what is now 100 rockets a day from Lebanon.
And Israel is left to fight a three front war directed by an oil-enriched Iran.
These policies are a complete failure on all fronts because they rely on compromise with terror instead of defeating it and so terror advances rather than retreats.