As always I only support military action anywhere, in any context, if it directly serves the interests of American citizens. It’s troubling that the arguments we’re hearing for this war in Iran, including from Trump himself, seem to revolve primarily around “bringing freedom to the Iranian people.” As Americans, the freedom of Iranians is not our responsibility. If a single American life is lost in the service of that goal, it will be a travesty.
What nobody has even come close to sufficiently explaining is how this war will first and foremost directly benefit American citizens. That is a case that needed to have been made clearly and convincingly before this move, and it wasn’t. We’re also told how this will benefit Israel, and I’m sure it will. But Israel is not America. What does it do for America? How does it help us? That needs to be explained to us. And it isn’t “panicking” or demonstrating “disloyalty” to demand those very basic answers about how American tax money, and potentially American lives, are being spent.
We hear about the danger of a nuclear Iran, but that’s odd because we were told that Iran’s nuclear capabilities had already been set back decades. We hear that this war will be over quickly and easily because Iran is powerless, which I hope and pray is the case, and maybe it will be. But that’s odd, too, because if Iran is such a paper tiger then how were they a danger to us in the first place? It seems hard to argue both that Iran is an existential threat to the United States and that we can topple them in 20 minutes with no casualties or negative downstream effects.
Also the political calculation really matters here. A huge majority of American oppose this. That’s just a fact. If it costs Republicans in 26 and 28, then, no matter how things work out in Iran, it will not have been worth it. A free Iran at the cost of Democrat rule here at home is a bad deal. A free Iran for an unfree America would be just about the worst trade of the century.
I’m praying for our great country today.
She researched the clipped quotes of Charlie Kirk's being taken out of context and what she found was incredible
Critical thinking is a wonderful thing
Yes. Charlie Kirk did say, "I can't stand the word empathy."
Here is the full quote:
"I can't stand the word empathy, I think empathy is a made up new age term and it does a lot of damage. Sympathy is a better word, because empathy means you are actually feeling what another person felt, and no one can feel what another person feels."
Yeah. Charlie Kirk did say, "I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
Here's the full quote:
“Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.
Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?”
Christianity Today has been rightly labeled by many as 'Christianity Astray' for many years. The latter title has never been more appropriate than it is now under the leadership of Russell Moore.
They lie, let their audience read it and believe it, then issue a half-hearted hidden correction at the end of the story hours (or even days) later.
This is exactly how people like Charlie Kirk end up murdered.
Disrespectfully, screw you @nytimes.
It is NOT a "both sides" issue.
No assassination attempts on Biden.
No assassination attempts on Kamala.
No assassination attempts on AOC.
No assassination attempts on any other prominent voice on the political left.
No violence from pro-Israeli crowds.
No arrests on the pro-Israeli side.
No calls for death or murder of those who oppose the pro-Israeli side.
Those who oppose gender ideology do not call for the death of those who disagree with them.
Those who oppose movements like BLM did not call for the death of those who took part in the BLM riots.
Social media is not flooded with videos from those on the right celebrating the deaths of those on the left or wishing harm upon them.
It is not a "both sides" issue.
If your response to anyone being gunned down while exercising their free speech is, “They had it coming.” I’m not sure we can have a reasonable dialogue.
You can claim Christ all you want, but that response is demonic.
This is such a good point. If you actually watch Charlie’s events—as opposed to the fake summaries—they are one of the few places with open and honest dialogue between left and right. He would answer any question and talk to everyone.
Trump doesn’t understand the gospel if he thinks he can earn his way to heaven.
A saved person never says something like this. The man needs to be born again.
This is why Paula white should never ever be anyone’s spiritual adviser, she has the theology of a turnip
The only reason the death penalty doesn’t deter crime right now is that it’s used too rarely and too late. If, after rape or murder, the perpetrator knew he’d be proven guilty and executed within 3 days, horrifying crimes like this would be a LOT less common.
The death penalty for heinous crimes after due process is one of the kindest ways we can love our most vulnerable neighbors.
Islam sacrifices the weak in pursuit of power. Christianity sacrifices power in defense of the weak.
Islam says: “Let the little children go to their death.” Jesus says: “Let the little children come to Me.”
Islam’s god says: “You must die for me.” Jesus says: “I died for you.”
Christianity’s self-sacrificial component has a civilizing effect on every society it enters. Islam’s inherent violence brings every nation it dominates into barbarism.
The two belief systems and the cultures they create are ultimately incompatible. Islamists understand this fact in a way most Christians don’t.