yjacket

I agree, please do stick around. I come off as the grouchy old man . . .but I don't bite :-).

I'm completely fine with your mom's example. But heaven help the LDS family that did this to a homosexual couple-the LGBT whatever would be up in arms. How dare you! You don't love them! How so un-Christlike! I know more people who are Christlike-you're no Christian! blah,blah, blah. I've said it before and I'll say it again; LGBT don't want to just live and let live (my philosophy), they want acceptance. They want to live in their sin and convince everyone else along with themselves that what they are doing is not sin. Big, big difference.

One of the few times that I actually really disagree with the majority of the message the Church is putting out here and in some ways I think this is the Church speaking out of both sides of it's mouth. Actually, the message of the article is one of acceptance of homosexual behavior. No where in the article does it mention sin, repentance, obedience. In fact a major bullet point of the article is Love without Condemning. The article states " love everyone, even those among your family and friends who may make choices different than you would. " ??? What a completely backwards article. We aren't talking about just simply different choices here. Different choices are: I choose to live in the city rather in the country, I listen to heavy metal vs. classical music, I choose to be an artist vs. a lawyer. No, the choices discussed here are not just choices, these are decisions to sin. And such major sin will lead away from Christ if they are not repented of. Out of 7 kids, one chooses to lead a homosexual livestyle against the counsel, guidance of prophets and scriptures and one has a kid out of wedlock. People today quite frankly don't know what love is. They equate love with acceptance-which is exactly what this article advocates. Just accept those who choose to live differently than you do-it's really no big deal. "My favorite part is the video is where the father tells of asking his gay son, "Why would you choose this?" with the son responding with a chuckle. This moment changed the father's perspective and helped him learn to empathize." That part is just so sick . . .the son thinks he is so much wiser than the dad and just chuckles at his dad's "ignorance". Yes the father is absolutely right, the son is choosing this lifestyle, he is choosing to be in a homosexual relationship, which is against God's commandments. Quite frankly, what kind of absolute drivel is this? I get it, people don't necessarily choose their emotions . .. however the point of this life is to learn how to control our emotions and feelings, not to be ruled by them. I have absolute sympathy for someone who suffers with SSA, but I have none for someone who chooses to engage in homosexual behavior (and that doesn't just include sex)-it is 100% absolutely sin. I quite frankly, hope the Church really understands the messages they are putting out by shoving this crap front and center. #1 It doesn't need to be made a big issue of so putting it on the front page of lds.org is unnecessary. #2 The Church is trying to walk a very fine line that will ultimately fail one way or the other. The Church has unequivocally made the stand that homosexual relationships are unacceptable with the decision on children being baptized. Yet at the same time, the Church media arm has very recently (last 6 months) been pushing a "loving", just accept everyone in the lifestyle they choose message. Those two messages are not compatible over the long-term. Either the 1st must be modified where it is acceptable, or the 2nd must be modified where the message is that we love even when we condemn the actions and sin. This message of loving without condemning is sick. We have been taught by prophets in the past, by scriptures what is righteous behavior and non-righteous behavior. We can absolutely condemn the sin of homosexual behavior. Shoot, just look at what the word condemn means: express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure. The statement that we should love without condemning is an absolute lie. Now this doesn't mean, we need to be jerks about it and go up to this guy who brings his bf to church and start telling him off. But it does mean we shouldn't shy away from unequivocally teaching in Sunday School lessons, Sacrament talks, etc. that this is gross sin. We can absolutely and should absolutely condemn homosexual behavior, just like we condemn pre-marital sex, and a whole host of other gross sins. But that isn't the message of this article. The message is to just "love". And the implication of this is that people will start to shy away from teaching true doctrine in church. I wouldn't have as much problem if the article actually expressed that these actions are sin, disobedience to God's laws, etc. but again no where in the article does it mention it. It's all about this fluffy modern thing called "love" which in modern parlance simply means acceptance of whatever behavior. One of the few times in my life, that I'm none too pleased about a message the Church puts out . . .and I'm sure b/c so many people just love this video it will be in the Ensign. Sometimes, I wonder if God allows things, not b/c He approves of it but b/c of the hardness of the people's heart and unwillingness to listen to Him. Moses received the higher law from God, but when he saw how the Israelite behaved he broke the higher law and God gave a lesser law. I sometimes wonder if many things that have been revealed will be taken away because of our unwillingness to cleave unto God's Word. And a homosexual relationship is different than a girl living with their bf-in that relationship there is a hope and a path for the girl and boy to fully repent and still be together. The only path for repentance in a homosexual relationship is for them to break-up and to never be in that type of a relationship again. And with a boy/girl it is not obvious that they are living in sin; with boy/boy it's very obvious. I go to Church to get away from the world a place of refugee, not a place were I have to again reinforce to my children-while Bill and John sit together and hold hands together in Church, it's unacceptable behavior. Certainly all are accepted and welcome, but it is incumbent on those who attend to understand the social norms of the location. It's more a complaint against current lack of understanding of social grace in today's society. The first thing I do when I go someplace is to understand what the social norms are for that location, do people dress-up, is it casual, etc. I don't show up to Church drunk and hung over, I don't show up wearing flip-flops. But in today's "you just have to love me as I am" society, the understanding of the need for conforming to the social norms in a group setting has completely flown out the window. This doesn't just happen in a Church setting, but it is a broader condemnation of society where the only norm now is that there are no norms.

I do . . . polygamy. It would not surprise me in the least to see it come back. In fact, if the Church moved on this issue, I could easily see them winning in the Supreme Court and reversing Reynolds vs. United States.

I've seen the movie . . .very intriguing.

Considering that the Earth was made for man not the other way around, I think it is very important.

I don't really care if it was addressing me or not. The point remains, modern society has cheapened sex. It has become throw-away and consequently people do not see sex-out of wedlock as a bid deal anymore. It was certainly a much bigger deal 50-75 years ago. But today, b/c we are so inundated with it-no one really cares anymore-including members of the Church. Today no-one cares about what Proverbs says: Proverbs 31:10-31King James Version (KJV) 10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. 11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. 13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. 14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. 15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. 16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. 17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. 18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. 19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. 20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. 21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. 22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. 24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. 26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. 29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. 30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Negativo. You are obviously not up to date on the latest demographic changes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate. In order to reproduce, the fertility rate needs to be @ 2.1. The US and most of the industrialized, modern, western world is below re-population rate. While this won't manifest itself for a while, there is a big problem. The world's repopulation rate sits @ 2.36 and projections are within my lifetime total world re-population rate will fall below 2.1. This is a huge problem for societies and cultures. Probably the first time in world history that humans will voluntarily ensure the next generation is smaller than the current generation. Statistics also point out that once a society falls below re-population rate, it is very hard for it to recover. This is b/c it is a very long cycle problem (i.e. about 70+ years). It takes about 40 years before a country that has lower than 2.1 rate to actually notice a population decline barring immigration. That's another 40 years that people will voluntarily have less children. Then in order to reverse the decline, societal attitudes towards children, families, child-rearing etc. have to change. That also takes time; so by the time those attitudes actually change and then people start actually more having babies (which again is a limited time window up until ~35 for women as pregnancies become high-risk after that age) put on another 10-15 years. So for a society to voluntarily reverse a below repopulation rate and then to subsequently see the population rise again requires probably somewhere 70-100 years. Russia dropped below re-population rate in 1966. Since then they have only bounced about it for about 2-3 years in the last 50 years. They didn't start to see their population decline until 1993-they sit at about 1.8. They have major structural demographic problems, just like the US does. This does not bode well for the industrialized world at all.

This is only a modern day occurrence and only in modern western societies that have made sex cheap through birth control. Go to non-western/modern societies and you'll find a very different story. B/c you know, that is how babies are made and I guarantee you, the above does not hold water at all. In fact, that was one of the primary lessons I learned on my mission. There is no faster way to destroy a society and it's stability than to have sex out of wedlock. I saw the ill-effects of it several times a week-it happened to members who were baptized, those who weren't, etc. It destroys a society. The reason why murder and sex out of wedlock are comparable is that they both deal with the power of life-one that creates life and one that destroys life. Sex has been cheapened in modern society that "it's just sex" when that is Satan's lie-it's not just sex, it is the literal power to create and those powers are reserved for those who are married. Someone who has sex out of wedlock does not understand some of the basic concepts of life-just like someone who murders doesn't understand the basic concepts of life. I wouldn't want to marry someone who has done one or the other-b/c it demonstrates a severe lack of understand about the most important principles and concept of being here on this earth.

This is exactly what has happened culturally. Culturally we have become numb to the gravity and seriousness of sexual sin. That numbness is portrayed in movies, art, literature, words and is absolutely relevant to why homosexuality is no big deal anymore-as a society we are as it were "past feeling" on this issue. Let us not forget that at one time adultery was punishable by death and while sins punishable by death were more common-their still were not too many sins that required it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_Torah I'm glad we don't have capital punishment for sexual sins today . . .but it should be a very important lesson for us that if at one time God through His Prophets commanded that those who were guilty of sexual sins were punishable by death-then yes sexual sins are a very big deal.

This. Personally, I think we have as a society gone way too far in the direction of "compassion". We seem to think that Jesus was all about compassion, compassion, compassion. And that is true to an extent, but yet we don't seem to remember that Jesus at many points was extremely harsh. He cursed the fig tree, threw out the money changers, he said unto Peter, one of his loyalist followers "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men". If we don't think that at certain times Jesus was very harsh, then we have not read the scriptures. In fact, the scriptures are re-pleat with instances of Prophets of God calling people to repentance and telling them they are in danger of hell-fire if they do not repent. I don't know exactly what I would do if one of my children decided to do this; I hope I never have to be faced with it. I do know that I would not accept their lifestyle, they would absolutely know I do not accept it and that it is not of God, and I would not accept their bf/gf in my house-I will not accept such gross sin into my house. What else I would do, I don't know. But if they would think that me not accepting their sin in my house is me cutting them off-well I guess I failed to teach them properly as they are being raised. This modern idea that we need to just "accept people as they are" and "you've got to be true to yourself" is absolute modern psychological doogy. Nothing could be further from the truth. The whole point of this life is to become what God wants us to become and that requires change, changing the very being of who we are-I'm not the same person I was 10 years ago and in 10 years I won't be the same person I am today (hopefully, I'll be better).

Not so; the Maya's condoned murder. Strict Muslims condone murder, many older religions have very strict regulations about such things when it came to their own people, but not so when it came to other people. And no society didn't break down. The amazing thing about humans is how quickly we adapt to survive. There are plenty of modern day examples of regimes that condone murder and society doesn't break down into anarchy-it's not a pleasant place to live, but it's not anarchy. Without the Judeo-Christian God, murder and theft becomes a "can I get away with it, without causing major injury to myself" vs. I shouldn't do it b/c it is fundamentally wrong and even if I do get away with it, God will punish me at some point. And I am not aware of any free love societies that existed for any extended period of time. A couple of reasons for this; #1 jealousy, #2 progeny. The drive to reproduce is very strong, and up until the last 50 years (modern-birth control) out-of-wedlock sex would have a very high likelihood of resulting in a pregnancy. Prior to modern conveniences, a pregnant woman, or a woman raising children, would take an inordinate amount of time; for her to be without a husband and to raise children would be either a death-wish or a very, very hard life. Sidenote: there is a real good reason why the word "husbandry" means the care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals. To be a husband to a wife prior to the modern error had many, many similarities. Therefore, if a woman wanted access to sex, she knew that there was a high-likelihood of getting pregnant and being with child (and children) without a husband-or someone to provide for and take care of the her and the children, meant very, very bad things. This is also why polygamy is not necessarily a bad thing, if a woman had access to a man who could provide for her, her children and another woman and her children, that would be better than a woman with no man (or a man who was a slouch). And prior to the modern error, romantic love was a farce. Yes there are certainly great love stories in antiquity, but for the common people it was more about survival and finding a good match rather than romantic love. Therefore while a marriage and no adultery is certainly "because God said so", there are many, many reasons why on a societal basis marriage is a good thing no adultery is a good thing; it produces a much more stable society. Even in the modern day, the statistics prove it out, single motherhood is about the worst thing that can happen to a child-the statistics are horrific for those children.

I agree anatess . . .but I have also learned in life that the light of Christ needs to be cultivated and that parents are a critical influence in cultivating that light of Christ. A child steals, he may feel bad that he steals, but if he doesn't have good parents at home to reinforce that stealing is bad, to reinforce the shame, guilt, and bad feelings associated with stealing, he will be more likely to return to stealing. Eventually if he does it enough without proper guidance he will have completely diminished the light of Christ in his life to where he no longer feels it. The family plays a critical role in cultivating the light of Christ, which is one reason why Satan seeks to destroy the family so much. If he can destroy the family, then he can destroy the very foundation of what cultivates the light of Christ and then it will be as the scriptures say that the Spirit no longer strives with man.

There is plenty of proof, people just don't accept it or want to hear it. And the ultimate reason for the vast majority of these sorts of things, i.e. murder, theft, adultery, etc. simply boils down to "because God said so". Certainly He has his reasons for making said laws, but in many ways it is simply like parents raising a child. When a child asks a parent why the can't do xyz or must do abc, the simplest, easiest, most honest answer is "because I said so". There are definitely reasons as to why, and as a child gets older you can explain those reasons, but if the child is rebellious (and even if he isn't it can go this way), the child will very likely say, no I don't agree with your reasoning. At that point, the answer becomes "because I said so"-which is the ultimate truth behind the reasoning. And it is the ultimate truth behind this issue too. There many reasons thought. AIDS (or what was originally known as Gay-related immune deficiency (GRIDS)-but of course that name would have been calling a spade a spade and the homosexual community couldn't have that). 67% of AIDS cases come from homosexual men. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/cdc-gay-men-2-population-67-all-new-hiv-cases Studies on relationships have shown that homosexual relationship are less stable and more likely to break up than heterosexual relationships. And the family, children have a right, yes I did say right (and I don't say that too often-especially when it comes to children), to be raised in a stable two-parent household consisting of male and female. http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF): Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%) Have lower educational attainment Report less safety and security in their family of origin Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin Are more likely to suffer from depression Have been arrested more often If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female Children of lesbian mothers: Are more likely to be currently cohabiting Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance Are less likely to be currently employed full-time Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver." Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others Use marijuana more frequently Smoke more frequently Watch TV for long periods more frequently Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense The same holds true with the number of sexual partners. Both males and females who were raised by both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have more opposite-sex (heterosexual) partners than children of married biological parents (daughters of homosexual fathers had twice as many). But the differences in homosexual conduct are even greater. The daughters of lesbians have 4 times as many female (that is, same-sex) sexual partners than the daughters of married biological parents, and the daughters of homosexual fathers have 6 times as many. Meanwhile, the sons of both lesbian mothers and homosexual fathers have 7 times as many male (same-sex) sexual partners as sons of married biological parents. The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" [wait a sec. I thought all those pro-homosexual people keep telling me that just b/c one is homosexual doesn't mean one is a pedophile . . .hmm, real curious here](23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%). But society is being lead blindly down a path that leads to destruction by following the false gods and prophets of modern day psychology-and of course b/c it is not "politically correct" to mention these unfortunate facts, funding for research, studies, etc. to really understand all the ill-effects this is having is cut off. The data is there for anyone who wants to look, but it's an inconvenient truth to those who have been lead to believe the homosexual lie. And b/c of that, the data doesn't matter. As in most things in life, human beings are emotional creatures and we make decisions based on emotion and thus for someone who has already determined that homosexual unions, etc. are perfectly fine (b/c of social engineering), no amount of data will convince them otherwise. And as such, the only thing left is to quite bluntly say, the reason it is bad is "because God said so." And if they don't believe in God . . .well that's a shame b/c without a God we get into moral relativism and whatever you think is good becomes good, whatever you think is evil becomes evil and in history that has lead to some very bad societal outcomes.

What! JAG and yjacket agreeing? There must be something in the water. . ..hurry anyone have the horoscopes? It's the END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT!!!!!!! ;-).

Unfortunately many people miss IMO the reason on why children in homosexual families cannot be baptized. In this topic, too many progressive LDS members forget there is another group of people who's children may not be baptized, polygamists. IMO the Church came out with this policy to draw an unmistakable line in the sand, just as they did when Polygamy was done away with. To state unequivocally that while the Church certainly understands that the burdens of those who have SSA is tremendous homosexual behavior is not of God and will not be accepted in His Church, no ifs ands or buts. I am glad they did and if someone leaves over this policy, I certainly wish they wouldn't but the parable of the wheat and the tares comes to mind.

In a marriage it takes two to tango. I'm not excusing the husband's behavior; however more likely than not the marriage was broken way before the actual infidelity and for that both the husband and the wife share the fault. From what you've presented the ex could use a good lesson in something called social grace . . . i.e. when someone offers you an apology/condolences, you accept it. This new cultural norm that a fully formed adult gets to say something like "you don't know how I feel, or thanks a lot for opening the problem again", or feels it appropriate to lash out at another is quite new and quite frankly is the attitude of a teenager that never grew up. A moody teenager is expected to have those feelings and not respond appropriately. A fully formed mature, responsible adult might still have those feelings but knows better than to be a jerk. Some things are better left unsaid and even if one does think "well I really didn't need to be reminded about xyz", the best appropriate action is to simply accept the offer and then move on. The fact that she didn't and instead lashed out at you does not reflect well on her and her maturity level, i.e. she hasn't grown up and that very well could have been a source of the marital problems. . . but who knows. At this point, there is not much else you can do. Don't worry about it and move on with life. If anything, simply say STTE of "I'm glad things are working out well for you, your husband and children. I hope things continue to go well. If you ever would like to chat please let me know" and then be done with it. Life is just too dang short to hang onto junk like this and let it worry and stress you out.

Unfortunately, the world has become less accepting of righteous authority and giving said authority the benefit of the doubt. By this I mean that, people seem to think nowadays that the teacher is only their to facilitate discussion, and that the rules don't apply to them. In general people are less respectful towards righteous authority, to parents, to teachers, to each other. In addition, it is now en vogue to give the party who is upset at authority the benefit of the doubt vs. giving leadership the benefit of the doubt. Teachers are more than just to facilitate discussions . .. otherwise we would call them discussion facilitators rather than teachers. So what do they teach? The Doctrines of the Gospel as laid out in the manuals, they are to teach by the Spirit, but to still teach according to the manuals. Unfortunately we have an attitude among some members, that Church meetings is the place where they should learn everything and anything about Church history, the mysteries of the Gospel, etc. That if they didn't learn it in an actual Church setting that the Church "lied" to them. And this is absolutely false. A teacher absolutely has the right and the obligation to terminate a discussion or a question in class that veers into strange paths. For example, a Sunday School class is an inappropriate place to start a deep discussion about Fanny Alger and Joseph Smith or about Blood Atonement, Adam-God theory or any other host of deep discussions. If you want to learn deep history on the Church in an actual Church setting, take Church Institute classes. https://www.lds.org/si/institute/manuals?lang=eng There are at least 2 courses that will dive fairly deep into the early Church in the 19th century.

I agree that is weird. Generally speaking all a teacher needs to do is assume command and just say something like "we appreciate your thoughts on xyz, if anyone wishes to discuss it further we can do so after class, we will now discuss abc" or STTE. I can see someone getting kicked out of class if they are simply unwilling to obey the teacher and conform to that request, but most should get the hint. In addition, this would be a perfect thing to bring up in teacher's council. It would have to be an extreme circumstance for someone to get kicked out. IMO.

No, that's exactly the reason why I voted for Trump. I'm surprised you voted for him (and like him) considering everything you've said about Ryan, Gingrich and the whole other host of establishment, insider Rs. I voted for Trump to blow up the entire Republican establishment-not b/c I think he is conservative. The exact reason we are in this mess is b/c of the Paul Ryan's of the world and it's the exact reason why people voted for Trump. When Trump says "for too long politicians have been all talk and no action", the Paul Ryan's are exactly the one's he was referring to. And contrary to most all talk politicians. Trump is actually doing something. His budget (while not what I'd like,it still increases the budget), does what the Paul Ryan's have been saying they would do for ages-it's making significant cuts to the federal government. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/16/winners-and-losers-in-trumps-budget-blueprint.html Please tell me when Ryan came out with a budget that cut the State Department by 28%! Ryan can take his budget that called for a measly 2% cut and shove it. Now if we just completely eliminated some departments we'd really be rocking, but I'll still take an almost 30% cut.

I generally agree add in schools and what they teach and no one really knows. What it really ends up being is the cult of Personality, i.e. I like blah and I think he is conservative so when he says blah2, that must be a conservative thing. Trump is an independent . . .I'm not exactly sure he has an ideology, except get the job done. That can be good, or it can be bad. I only voted for him to shove it up the patutee of the Paul Ryan's of the world. We'll see if that was a good decision or a bad one . .. .

And yet you claimed Gingrich balanced the budget? Why claim it if you know it is political trickery? (one can actually balance the budget it is possible). Lol . . .Gingrich a conservative. Tell me another good one. I don't think you know what a conservative really is: 1. Education — Gingrich backed federal education funding from his earliest days in office, though the Constitution gives absolutely no authority over education to any branch of the federal government. He helped garner support to create President Jimmy Carter’s Department of Education in 1979. Since then educational spending has soared while educational standards have plummeted. Things got worse when he was Speaker. In 1996, then-Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour bragged that “education spending went up under the Republican Congress as much as it went up under the Democratic Congress.” That is a bit of an understatement since Gingrich’s Republican Congress increased education funding by $3.5 billion in 1996, the largest single increase in history. 2. Foreign Aid — Gingrich voted numerous times throughout his 20 years in Congress to increase and expand unconstitutional foreign aid and trade. He supported both subsidized trade with the Soviets and federally funded loans to foreign governments through the Export-Import Bank. Between 1994 and 1995, Gingrich voted for $44.8 billion in foreign aid. He also helped push through federally funded loan guarantees to China. 3. NAFTA and GATT — In 1993, Gingrich proved himself invaluable to Clinton and the Democrats in Congress when he garnered enough Republican support to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the precursor for development of an eventual North American Union, following the same trajectory that has occurred in Europe with the emergence of the EU. (See the October 15, 2007 “North American Union” issue of The New American, especially “NAFTA: It’s Not Just About Trade” by Gary Benoit.) The next year he followed suit by supporting the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). As Minority Whip, he could have postponed the lame-duck vote on GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) that subjected Americans to the WTO. Gingrich’s Benedict Arnold act helped to hand over the power to regulate foreign commerce, a power reserved in the Constitution to Congress alone, to an internationally controlled body, making America’s economic interests entirely at the mercy of the WTO. Gingrich knew GATT sounded the death knell for American sovereignty. In testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee prior to the lame-duck session, he said, “We need to be honest about the fact that we are transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization.... This is not just another trade agreement. This is adopting something which twice, once in the 1940s and once in the 1950s, the U.S. Congress rejected.... It is a very big transfer of power.” 4. Contract With America — Another con-game Gingrich played was the much-acclaimed “Contract With America,” the Republican Party’s supposed answer to big government. It turned out to be a public relations smokescreen to cover various unconstitutional measures that Congress planned to pass under Gingrich’s leadership. The Contract included a “balanced budget amendment,” which amounted to a Republican excuse to continue spending while claiming to fight for fiscal conservatism. If the government only spent money on constitutional programs, the deficit would take care of itself. And Gingrich isn't much of a conservative either. He's an establishment guy too. The key with Gingrich though is that every now and then he throws out morsels of truth (such as his acknowledgement on national TV during the primaries of the Insiders/globalists who didn't want Trump to win. If a conservative is someone who likes to talk small government but does the opposite then yes he is one; but the guy is a hypocrite, just like Ryan and Price. or this: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/newt-gingrich-is-no-conservative anatess, I know you believe in conservative principles, I just don't get why you let the so-called "conservative" Representatives skate on actually doing conservative things. As far as your Ryan's "process", it passed the committee, now it goes to the full House. If you think the full House will change the bill wholesale, you have no clue as to how committee's work and why they have them. The committee is where the nitty gritty work on the bill is done-it's where it gets modified. Yes it can get modified by the full house-but that is a much harder process and generally only results in very minor changes to the bill, not drastic changes. So good luck!

?? Talk about false teaching. I guess this is true, but so what? Let's see, I'm someone who has pre-marital sex, I get a women pregnant, now I have to support her. Now I'm angry b/c I'm "hurt" that I have to support the child? Please give me a break. The world has gone mad with this "feelings" junk. No, let's identify the real cause of anger-it comes from unrighteous feelings and it's something we can control. We are all prone from time to time to deal with anger, but we are better than the beasts of the field and are put on this earth to learn how to control our feelings. My children through temper-tantrums, yes they are angry. I guess in your terminology angry b/c they didn't get what they wanted, b/c they are "hurt". I've tried it both ways, the way of "oh, I'm so sorry child, that you're hurt, but we just can't do xyz" and "welp, kid I imagine I would feel like you do if I was your age, but the answer is no. Either stop now or go to your room". Guess which one works the best? The biggest problem we have in today's society is that we have a bunch of emotionally stunted children running around in adult bodies that don't have control over their emotions and feelings. And quite frankly, IMO this is the church's biggest problem. Not history, not spirituality, not any of that. It's the reason why so many youth leave, why missionaries can't hack it, etc. It's b/c they are emotional children in adult bodies, i.e. they haven't been trained and raised properly. And when children haven't been told no enough times as a child, then they get to be adults and then when someone tells them no-they get all pissed, upset, etc. and become angry and eventually just say well if I can't do xyz-I'll take my ball and go home.

?? Excuse me, how did I do that.

I swear, if one more person says we had a balanced budget in the 90s I'm gonna puke. Anatass, please don't believe the lies and Washington doublspeak. We did not have a balanced budget. http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 Once cannot have a balanced budget if the total debt owed by the US government increases!. Balanced budget means income=expense. I don't care how you account it but when you have the total debt increase every year we had a "balanced budget" that's not balanced. It was only "balanced" if you don't count the interest on the debt (an expense) and "off-budget" items. And who gets to decide what is off-budget, Congress. The "balanced" budget was just accounting tricks and games.