CAN ONLY STRAIGHT PEOPLE HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD?

Evangelist Franklin Graham was in Key West yesterday. His visit to Key West specific. Key West is gay friendly. He wanted to save the souls of the homosexual/gay community.

A pompous ass!

His hatred towards the LGBT community is well known. He preaches homosexuality is a sin. His lead up to the Key West visit included these words: “I’m going to Key West to tell everyone how they can have a relationship with God through faith in his son, Jesus Christ.”

My initial reaction to his visit was…..Get out of here! You are a troublemaker!

My anger faded. He has a right to speak as to his beliefs. Referred to as freedom of speech. I have the same right, though I speak in direct opposition to his beliefs.

His pre-appearance public relations shared his bigoted thoughts. He compares homosexuality to adultery, lying, stealing and having pride. He said, “I am sure a lot of people in Key West have committed adultery.”

Yes, some with the same sex, others with the opposite sex. No one goes through life without lying. More than once, many tomes. Stealing I am not sure. Don’t believe that many steal.

Pride. A sin of magnitude. I view Graham as one who wears his pride on his sleeve. See world how good I am!

Proverbs 16:16 tells us “pride goeth before a fall.”

Then there are those who believe they are without sin. Christ did not believe so. Recall John 8:7. “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

I was not able to attend his talk at the Amphitheater yesterday. Supporters and protesters alike did. Those I have spoken with indicated an equal group of each.

We are one human family. Not only do the straights accept gays, the gays accept straights. Never an issue.

Graham would be surprised to know that the Mayor of Key West and the Mayor of Monroe County are gay women married to other women. Healthy God fearing women, not immoral.

At some point yesterday, I stopped at the Fairfield. My lesbian wife Donna is concierge. She is married to my other lesbian wife Terri.

I have been sickly the past 3 months. Never made it to deliver Christmas gifts to my beloved ladies. Dropped them off to Donna yesterday. Better late than never.

Donna chewed my ass out for staying in so much. Claims if she was 84, she would be out evenings having a good time. Including a drink or two.

Why so many inconsistencies in what Trump tells us? Another lie/misrepresentation. A simple thing. Iran’s retaliation to the killing of Soleimani were missiles fired at 2 U.S. airbases in Iraq. The missile attacks occurred somewhere around January 8. Trump and Pompeo immediately advised no U.S. personnel killed nor injured.

Yesterday, the U.S. military announced 11 U.S. troops were injured. Concussions. Were flown to Germany and Kuwait for treatment.

Rachel Maddow interviewed Lev Parnas 2 evenings in a row. Interesting. He sat at the table during the Iraqi/Biden/ hold back the money scenario. He appeared to be telling the truth. We will know better if he is permitted to testify at the Senate trial.

A Letter to the Editor in the Los Angeles Times yesterday concerning the Senate trial.

Paraphrasing.

The Senators have taken their oath of impartiality as jurors. However, most have already indicated they do not want to hear witness testimony nor compel the presence of any witnesses.

Sort of a dictatorship approach to things. The jury is told in advance what to believe and how to vote. A clear vision to the world of just how corrupt our government has become.

The letter writer however thought it all would amount in the final analysis to a hill of beans. By the time of the election, there would be no impeachment winners or losers, only participants.

Another example of Trump caring more for corporations rather than people.

Round-Up a deadly herbicide. Known to be so for years. Cancer causing.

Several countries have banned its sale. Two or three yeas ago even Russia. Putin said in effect let the Americans kill themselves, we’re not.

Monsanto the bad guy manufacturer. Recently sold its entire operation to Bayer AG for $63 billion.

Thousands of lawsuits are pending against Monsanto. Bayer AG probably assumed liability for them under the sales agreement. That is how the game is played.

Two significant verdicts have come in against Monsanto. Both involving California ground keepers. Each got cancer which the jury in each instance held Monsanto responsible for. The grounds were failing to inform customers the product was capable of causing cancer. A common ground for holding a company responsible when its product causes cancer and there has been no warning it could.

The judgments for $289 million and $25 million respectively.

Both cases are on appeal. The EPA and Justice Department are on the side of Monsanto/Bayer AG. They want the judgments overturned  and a determination that Round-Up is not cancer causing.

Donald, prove to America your belief that Round-Up is safe. Square off a sizable area on White House grounds. Treat the grass with Round-Up. You, personally. Do it several times. Have one of your children help you each time.

Sign a waiver before that you will not sue if you come down with cancer. Might as well protect these corporate giants all the way.

Guess what? The odds are you will be afflicted.

Earlier this morning, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei led prayers in Tehran. The first time the Supreme Leader has done so in 8 years.

Part of his presentation included mocking U.S. officials. They are “American clowns.”

Enjoy your day!

 

 

20 comments on “CAN ONLY STRAIGHT PEOPLE HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD?

  1. I agree with Donna.

    At 84, you have exceeded the average life span of the American male. It’s time to (moderately) enjoy yourself, not deprive yourself.

    Rahm Emanuel’s brother, a doctor, wrote a book about this subject, a few years ago. Very good book, thought provoking.
    The main point being — By attempting to preserve your life, you open yourself up to dementia, cancer, stroke, general infirmity, all the things that overtake anyone who lives too long.

    In other words, you have lived a full life, now enjoy yourself, start smoking, drinking, stop doctoring so much, doing unnecessary medical tests, etc. Go out more, enjoy your life!

    • Without whom (Trial Lawyers) crooks and wrongdoers (including companies) would be TOTALLY free to get away with anything, impunity would create chaos, trial lawyers and huge settlements are the only thing left keeping any kind of balance.

  2. My uncle, born the same year as Jack LaLanne, died the same year as Jack. Jack LaLanne was arguably the most fit person ever to live. Deprived himself of all simple pleasures in life.
    My uncle smoked as a young man, till middle age, drank moderately, didn’t exercise till in his retirement years (daily walks) and lived a great life.

    Long life is mostly all in the genes…and avoiding large trucks.

  3. Here’s a question for those of you Interested in legal matters. Senators Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar are now sworn jurors in Donald Trump’s trial, which could result in his removal from office. At the same time they are each campaigning for his job. Isn’t this a breach of ethics and an obvious conflict of interest? Shouldn’t they recuse themselves from the trial, or drop out of the Presidential race? Opinions?

    • Sorry, I didn’t mean to tip over your sippy cup. My serious question was meant for those who are able to discuss the Constitution and it’s various interpretations. That’s not you.

      • Bull Sh*t

        We have the head of the United States Senate, who is completely in charge of what is supposed to be a trial of the President, openly saying he is completely coordinating EVERYTHING with the President about the trial and that he’ll he doing whatever the president and his advisers want done and YOU want to pretend that you want to discuss the Constitution and it’s various interpretations, with respect to a relatively trivial issue about qualified prosecutors, but ONLY with people YOU feel should be participating?

        What kind of illegitimate spin doctor are you trying to pretend YOU are not?

        What kind of fools do YOU think everyone ELSE are?

        Why don’t you go find an open forum where YOU are the only stupid participant and argue with yourself.

        Serious question – my arse !!!

  4. Thanks for the reply. Of course there will be accusations of rigging and unfairness in the Senate trial., just as there were in the House proceeding. That’s a given. But my simple question remains unanswered here. Is it a conflict of interest for a juror to personally gain from a conviction in a court of law? Did the Founders even consider the possibility?

    • First of all, this is NOT a court of law, it is an Impeachment trial. Impeachment does not even require a law to be broken.

      And does your question have anything to do with ANY of the Republican Senators, say Susan Collins, benefiting from her vote? Would she gain or loose if she voted against Trump?

      So get real with your nonsensical questions posed here for purely political reasons. Your intentions are both transparent and not all that clever, nor do you really know what you are talking about. Nobody is going to fall for your crap anyhow, you just seem to want to hear your self pontificate.

      • First of all, the impeachment has already occurred. Donald Trump will go into the history books as an impeached President.

        Secondly, the Senate trial is separate from the impeachment itself. The trial has already begun with the Chief Justice presiding, and all Senators sworn in as jurors. So we have a judge, jurors, prosecutors and defense council. Sounds like a court of law to me.

        Thirdly, it hardly matters how Susan Collins votes. She is not positioned to be elected President if Trump is removed from office. Unlike the Democratic Senators who are campaigning for the office, and have the potential to become President if Trump is removed as a consequence of their vote in the Senate trial. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.

        Finally, the question is not completely nonsensical. It could happen. A Democratic Senator could theoretically become President after casting a vote to remove Trump. I wonder how the country would react to that.

        • I would have thought that your transparent efforts at political hackery would be better researched and at least a little more logical.

          First of all, this removal process is nothing like a court of law in ANY traditional sense, regardless of what you may want to falsely project (or declare) for some level of perverted political theater, but rather a unique constitutional process (by positions) where all sides and participants stand to gain or loose in any outcome. Where in any traditional court of law does one side get to define the procedural process of a trial, as does the Senate Majority Leader? You know that and as such your efforts on this subject alone, very much do seem to be nothing but a transparent effort of false equivalency and political hackery.

          Secondly, no one here would understand how Senators Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar would actually benefit if their votes to remove the president would matter or somehow benefit themselves in any upcoming election, when the opposite would much more likely be a disaster (politically) for them if they did NOT vote for removal, based on the facts alone, already established in House. Furthermore, your argument that it hardly matters how Susan Collins votes, because she’s not running for president is completely nonsensical. If she votes to ‘remove’ president Trump, her likelihood of getting ANY RNC support for her upcoming reelection as Senator would evaporate, say nothing of Trumps’ political smears. She, and others like her, have far more to gain or loose than your attempts to somehow politically tarnish Senators Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar, would ever be.

          Furthermore, whatever Senators Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar do, it is cheap mental masturbation. In this case it would take something like 30 republican senators to join Senators Warren, Sanders and Klobuchar to actually remove Trump in this procedure, something that’s NEVER going to happen given the political situation gripping the Senate under Mitch McConnell’s control, regardless of the facts as to guilt in this whole mess.

          So, what conclusions can any of us see as to why you would try and make this ridiculous argument on Lou’s blog, in the first place, particularly since it is so poorly done? I would agree with “Get over yourself’s” conclusion that you just seem to want to hear your self pontificate.

  5. I agree that the scenario I described is highly unlikely. It is more likely to be a topic of discussion between law school professors over lunch, minus the vitriol and angry denunciations of course. I imagine it would be a civil and entertaining conversation. It’s a shame that the same cannot occur here.

    • “Are you f–king” kidding me?” You started this nonsense with what was basically a grenade throwing troll post, guaranteed to incite a negative response (negative by your BS estimate, comeuppance by the rest of us). You didn’t get a response to your inarticulate missive, so you hissy fit a while, then when you get some pretty accurate criticism, you go all snowflake like.

      VERY “Patrick” of you buddy. Yours was the dumb post, with deserving responses.

      Grow a pair or go away.

      • There isn’t anyone, apart from maybe some Hudson Valley Community College undergraduate night school PolySci wannabees, ever going to discuss this issue as presented, let alone a real lawyer or real scholar. It is not really a legal issue what so ever and frankly not worthy of ANY discussion anywhere, except possibly on FOX news or on Info Wars.

        It is however a ‘Troll’ topic meant only as a way to start an argument.

        However one thing that will be discussed in the future by politics and scholars, is how Devin Nunes can be the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence committee and involved in the Impeachment proceedings, with out recusing himself or resigning, all while he himself is materially part of the very crimes the President is being impeached for.

Leave a Reply to John Galt Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.