The media - collectively (both internationally and nationally) - will being scrutinizing everything political, with a fine tooth comb. And the AARP will be aware, of what is going on. Just as other major lobbyist groups are. So I will be informed, via the AARP news, as well as international (i.e. British, French and German services - in English), and our American news groups. And I even glance though the tabloids, as I’m shopping at the dollar stores. I’m sure the AARP is also concerned, about future retirement generations. Rest assured. 
I’ve listened to so much - idiocy - concerning Limbaugh. Not from him, just concerning him. People criticize him who have never listened to him themselves; they take the little mis-quoted, out- of -context things from rags like the NYT or maybe Ellen or Whoopi or cnbc or whatever as fact- it’s rather hilarious, when you’ve listened to him during the day, to hear his words twisted that evening on the news.
Yes i try to listen to Fox & CNN & MSNBC but the latter two have turned into propaganda stations and unabashedly so. They simply line up guests who attack Trump no matter what he does. I think they decided that by using this method they will get higher ratings and make more profits but Fox has much higher ratings by being a lot more balanced. There is also a new station called the Blaze started by Glen Beck. I really like some of their commentators. Tommie Lahren (a female) , Dana Loesh and Buck Sexton are awesome.
Obama Family Building a Wall Around New Home
This is probably a good idea for them; but not everyone can afford to do so. Similarly, school choice is a good idea, since not everyone can afford to send their kids to private schools like the politicians do.
Trump knocks border wall reports, insists Mexico will pay – eventually
By all means build that wall, a.s.a.p. (but simultaneously deepen relationships with Mexico’s leaders),
because, as I have pointed out previously:
ISLAMIC TERROR CELLS SHIFT FROM MIDEAST TO U.S.-MEXICAN BORDER
(My nephew is in the US Special Forces, and has been in combat operations for the last 13 years straight, except for training and R&R. I would guess he’s probably in Mosul again now, although he usually can’t even tell his immediate family where he goes, when he deploys.)
Blessings.
Just some footnotes here.
All ex US presidents, also have a Secret Service agent or 2, assigned to their protection.
Will Mexico pay for the wall? I’ll monitor the BBC news and see any follow up, in the Latin American section. And if they don’t, Trumpenstein should encourage the opening, of Taco Bell restaurants in Mexico - by the boatload. An old Mexican coworker of mine, insists they are not genuine Mexican food places. I have to agree.
I respect folks in the US special forces. And I have been friends with some. When you go to things, like Friday fish fries…at the Veterans of Foreign War…you meet up with them.
“Dominionism” is a multifarious political and religious philosophy, a little bit hard to pin down, that seeks to convert national governments into Christian theocracies. It came on my radar about 25 years ago, when I heard neighbors talking about the need to put ourselves under a particular para-church leadership by making solemn covenants with them, so that we could then work together to “take over” the world for Jesus. Of course, being a staunch futurist, when I understood they were postmillennialist or amillennialist and so believed that there would not be any future Antichrist or Tribulation (or Rapture/s), because, “well, all that happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD,” I said “no thanks.”
Regarding American evangelical politicians holding this viewpoint, think Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, and Sarah Palin.
I offer this short, but in-depth, research article (with 107 endnotes) about the history of dominionism for your consideration, because “forewarned is forearmed,” as they say:
: ** Dominionism Rising**A Theocratic Movement Hiding In Plain Sight. By Frederick Clarkson.
A few disclaimers about this very insightful article:
- It is from a leftist, non-Christian group
- I have no general problem with Christians holding political office
- I voted for Trump, and generally favor the Republican position on any given issue
Various para-church ministries are devoted to dominionism, and they include a wide range of doctrinal positions. But what I know about is the granddaddy of them all: The NAR (New Apostolic Reformation). The NAR was founded by C. Peter Wagner (recently deceased). Members have included Chuck Pierce, Bob Jones, Paul Cain, Cindy Jacobs, Mike Bickle, Rick Joyner, Todd Bentley, Lou Engle, and Ted Haggard.
So just where should we draw the line regarding ecumenism? Any organized attempt to bring about cooperation and unity among Christians must be based on truth. And while we are certainly to fulfill the Great Commission, consolidating independent, autonomous local churches under an external leadership can sometimes be a strategy of the enemy.
I know you would agree that political power (whether in or out of the Church) is no substitute for the pure power of love. We remember Martin Luther and others revolted against the tyrannical rule of the Holy Roman popes, their bishops, and their Catholic royalty. Charges of heresy flew back and forth, jails were filled with protesters, and many, many people lost their lives.
Here are two Bible verses which stand in opposition to the tenets of dominionism:
*-Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” * John 18:36.
*-But I tell you, do not swear [affirm/promise] an oath at all. *Matthew 5:34. (See also, Js. 5:12.)
Blessings.
You can rest easy Hermano… you’ve got some wires crossed. Most if not all NAR would be just like yourself… futurists, as is indicated by your linked article IF you read it all. These guys are charismatic/Pentecostal futurists and probably for the most part dispensationalists.
The “AD70” crowd were/are “Christian Reconstructionist” who first peddled “dominion theology” (quite different than the NAR) back in the 60’s and 70’s, also known as Theomony (the rule of the Law of God). These guys are partial prêterists and in the main postmillennial or amillennial Calvinists.
No, Davo. Although a few dominionists may sometimes use the rhetoric of “futurism,” when they do, they are NOT referring to “a Christian eschatological view that interprets portions of the Book of Revelation and the Book of Daniel as future events in a literal, physical, apocalyptic, and global context.” (Wikipedia). They are referring instead to some futuristic worldview “that man can create his own future.”
To reiterate, “dominionism” has many [size=120]competing streams[/size], but the brand espoused by the NAR is definitely NOT Futurist/Premillennialist, but rather is Historicist/Postmillennialist, and alternatively Preterist/Amillennialist.
Dominionists are no joke. As to my need to ‘read all’ the article, let me highlight two quotes from it I think you have missed, or misinterpreted:
From my perspective, dominion-oriented postmillennialism is winning. From what I am seeing, the majority of ministers across ALL denominations are leaving behind the “left behind” theology of the previous generations, and ending up squarely in the amillennial or postmillennial streams. This is especially the case within the Charismatic and Pentecostal wing of the church (my wing). Those who no longer embrace any form of Dispensationalism are becoming vocal advocates of **C. Peter Wagner’s brand of Postmillennialism, called “7 mountains of culture” dominionism. **
My own wake-up call to dominionism (which I alluded to earlier) came years ago with the advent of Promise Keepers. I saw how the upper echelons of the PK organization were filled with those from the largely dominionist, charismatic Vineyard movement. Although I myself am a charismatic evangelical, I am against taking oaths (swearing promises). Legalism inflames sin. As Romans says,
“For sin shall no longer be your master, BECAUSE you are not under the law, but under grace.” Rom. 6:14.
(Sadly, the converse of that verse is also true: ‘If you are NOT under grace, but under law, then sin SHALL be your master.’)
My futurist eschatology also contributed to my rejecting PK’s ecumenical vision of “breaking down the walls.” PK believes we have to take over the world, so that Jesus will then BE ABLE to return. PK and other ecumenical dominionists use the Great Commission to hammer people into submission to them. Their spin on Matthew 24:14—
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come”
—is that Jesus CAN’T return until we unite under dominionist leadership and preach the gospel to all nations.
But my eschatology shows me that the preaching of the gospel to all nations will be completed during the tribulation, by angelic messengers:
“Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people.” Rev. 14:6.
Thankfully, the Lord does not depend on dominionists in order to get the job done. **But be aware, and concerned about, ecumenical dominionist militancy. **
Blessings.
Hi, Hermano. I’m still confused on you take, regarding the power and influence of Satan. Like Satan being responsible for natural disasters. Rather than God just allowing it, or they are explained away by science. After all, God created Satan. And you being a believer in the Charismatic. Don’t you feel Christians (in a spirit filled church), can just drive him away?
Or are you looking at it this way? God is all good. And he can’t cause evil. So these natural disasters, must have some cause. Let’s attribute it to Satan. But that can take us somewhere, along the lines of Zoroastrianism. Where we have an even battle, between God as the good source and an evil source, equivalent to Satan. In the end, God as the good source wins. But it’s more or less, a battle of equal, good and evil forces.
Half my problem with theological positions here, is understanding how folks derived them. Like it took 15 pages of a thread… to finally see that someone is just following the ideas, of theologian A.E. Knoch. Now you probably can easily find…Baptist and Seventh Day Adventist scholars, to back up your “two-wine” position. I think you would find more difficulty, finding those in the Christian academic community…that agree Satan causes natural disasters.
That’s my take on these matters. 
On a different thread, I said this to you:
Also, regarding the position of the “Church Fathers,” on that same other thread, I quoted this entire Murray essay to you,
“IS SATAN INVOLVED IN EVERY EVIL OCCURRENCE?” By Richard K. Murray
I can’t really improve on that.
We all have a lot to learn about what is included for all of us in Jesus’ words, “it is finished.” The Gifts of the Holy Spirit, and how to receive and use them, and our authority as believers, are things I think we are just scratching the surface about. So yes, with that in mind, I believe we can drive away Satan in Jesus’ name.
Blessings.
I think “ecumenical dominionist militancy” is driven by the spirit of Antichrist. 
But, when I throw out names like Ted Cruz (whom I like), I by no means want to imply that right-wing evangelical Christian dominionists have any desire whatsoever to be used by the devil. (Well, I don’t want to be used by the devil, but I sure can be rude and unkind to my wife sometimes. And so I become his foil, yet again.)
Forgive me for oversimplifying or overgeneralizing dominionism. Not all dominionists are Republicans, or even Americans. There are *leftist *dominionists. Here is a quote from the article, Dominionism and the Rise of Christian Imperialism, by Sarah Leslie:
Blessings.
[size=125]Mexico’s President Cancels White House Visit After Trump Hits Cartels[/size]
I suspect this well-researched Breitbart news story indicates the real story behind this face-off with Mexico. Breitbart.com is widely thought to be President Trump’s unofficial voice. (Many people from Breitbart have been invited into the Trump administration.)
So, if through Breitbart he (Trump) is saying that the ruling political party in Mexico (“PRI,” which is comparable to Democrat) is corrupt, and that the U.S. is ‘not looking the other way’ any longer; no more status quo; no more ‘business as usual’–I say Mexico should probably pay attention.
I am surprised that the competing political parties here in Mexico, especially the largest, “PAN” (comparable to Republican), are not jumping on this Breitbart story yet. (Quite to the contrary, ex-President Vicente Fox, of PAN, has only F-bombs for Trump, and is himself part of the larger reaction to rally around the embattled President Peña Nieto over this.)
Maybe Trump won’t openly point to President Peña Nieto/PRI corruption, but he has Breitbart to do it for him–if people are paying attention.
Blessings.
While I accept and use allegorical Bible reading (as one tool among several), over the years, my friend Richard Murray and I have disagreed about its over-use. Here is my comment to him in his thoughtful FB post yesterday, where I relate over-allegorization with postmillennialism and the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR):
Richard responded:
Then I said:
Then he responded to me, in part:
And finally (because I’m done, for the next long while, dear friends):
Earlier in this thread, I mentioned the danger of Trump touching off a nuclear war, if elected. I believed that the fanatical North Korea would probably be the target. Now it appears that my speculation at the time may be drawing closer to reality.
North Korean missiles aimed at or near Guam could quickly escalate into war with the U.S.
Now if Trump could undo two more Obama outrages - the uranium deal Hillary struck with the soviet union, and the stupid deal with the Iranian nuclear program and the pallets of U>S> cash we gave them to boot.
The damage done by Obama will last a long time.
I think you’re wrong about Trump, Paidion, but as we’ve both said, time will tell.
In order to get a “balanced” perspective - on the American side…I watch BOTH Fox news and CNN. In addition to following the BBC and the Supermarket tabloids.
Actually - from a marketing perspective…The key question to ask - is this: “Who is the audience, for this news channel, newspaper, etc.” 
Then you will understand, they tailor their perspectives - to that audience.
For CNN, it is probably those, on the left wing.
For Fox news, it’s probably the Right wing. Who believe everything else but Fox - is “fake news”.
The BBC really caters, to folks in Britain. And the supermarket tabloids, I believe - caters to the Zombie population.
quote
The Goebbelsian campaign by Obama Inc’s Ben Rhodes, Ploughshares, Rockefeller Brothers and others told a lie repeatedly. Their Big Lie was that Iran’s program was somehow getting locked up. It wasn’t.
The monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program is effectively worthless. And while McMaster keeps Obama holdovers embedded in key positions at the NSC while firing those, like Derek Harvey, who had a plan to deal with it, we are more crippled than ever in our ability to come to grips with it.
Meanwhile even Obama, in a rare moment of near honesty, had admitted that at a point in the timeline of the deal, Iran would have a zero breakout time to a bomb.
“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said.
And that’s if you believe Obama. The claim that he made about materials limits in that same interview was already shown to be a lie.
Meanwhile Iran is boasting that it could be further along to a bomb in hours than it was before the disastrous Obama terror nuke sellout.
“If America wants to go back to the experience (of imposing sanctions), Iran would certainly return in a short time – not a week or a month but within hours – to conditions more advanced than before the start of negotiations,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told a session of parliament broadcast live on state television.
Which is to say, that Iran’s nuclear program is moving forward. The nuke deal didn’t stop its program. It protected it and in some ways even accelerated it.
end of quote - Daniel Greenfield
From wakawakawaka:
quote
A comment on Charlottesville: this sort of chip-on-the-shoulder activism is a no-win for the Right. It attracts too many of the lowest, stupidest, and most undesirable elements, and as we have seen, it results in officially sanctioned violence.
I remember a slogan from back in the Vietnam War era: Fighting For Peace Is Like F…g For Virginity. Creating disorder in the name of order is very much the same thing.
The Left is at present accelerating itself towards such offensive absurdities as to alienate ever-increasing numbers of normal and traditionally minded Americans. The structures they create are collapsing from their own internal weaknesses, costs, and contradictions. As they accelerate leftward, the fractal nature of faction and grievance, and the absence of any limiting principles, begins tearing them apart from inside, as they turn upon each other.
As Napoleon said: never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. What the Right needs to do is simply to stand clear, be true to its principles, make its case where possible, and to prepare for, but not incite, violent conflict. It also has some very important historical and intellectual work to do, namely to understand what went wrong, and make sure that as we rebuild we do not repeat our errors.
In short, the reactionary Right needs to think of itself not as a battleship, but an ark. end quote
And now a word from our sponsor - Nerd Notes 
This news flash is just in. This song called Aaaaa Very Good Song, is in the top 50 in Itunes. It’s just dead silence, folks. But the author named it Aaaaa,…, which comes up as the first song entry - by default. Here’s the song on YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=KVEBBFUatWI
And now back to our regularly scheduled, forum discussion. Where when we left off, some Republicans are criticizing Trump’s lack of condemnation - regarding White Supremacists, etc. 