My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs
My Stuff
On The Web
This Month's Scripture Verse:

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
2 Timothy 3:1-5


Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Blog Break

I am taking a seasonal blog break from posting from Wednesday, August 9 thru Monday, August 21. The next new post will be on Tuesday, August 22. In the meantime, you can visit some of the other pages on this blog accessed through the tabs shown above or the incomplete list below. 

Other Pages

  1. Audio-Visual Library Page (this is my favorite page on the website)
  2. Activism page
        Contains announcements of some major activist events. If you don't see your event there, email me at curtday111@yahoo.com
  3. Favorite Articles page
        Links to some of my current and all-time favorite articles to read. Includes articles by Chris Hedges, Bill Blum, Noam Chomsky, Robert Jensen, Rachel Corrie, Anna Politkovshaya, Rita Corriel, and the Political Jesus blog (I highly recommend this blog)
  4. Favorite Websites page
        This contains most of the websites that I visit the most.
  5. Past Blog Posts page
        If you want to check the complete list of blog posts on this blog, please click this tab. The posts are divided into regular posts, reviews, and the ONIMs

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Is There Any Hope Left For The US?

Is there hope left for this country is a question a friend of mine recently asked. I said that it might be that we have to go the way of Europe before there is light at the end of the tunnel.

What is the way of Europe? The way of Europe was WW I and WW II. There use to be quite a bit of intolerance, infighting, and the desire for control before that war. But the devastation that resulted from both wars at least temporarily changed Europe into becoming a more tolerant place. So when we question other regions in the world for their perpetual fighting, we need to realize what it took for Europe to become as peaceful and tolerant, at least within its borders, as it seems to be today.

But what threatens our hope is what is happening within our borders, even after the Civil Rights Movement. We have at least two strikes against us. For the first strike, we should note that Martin Luther King Jr. warned us that for as long as we value things, which are gadgets, profits, and property rights, over people, we will have racism, war/militarism, and economic exploitation/materialism. Note that in 2 cases there are 2 options given because King expressed what is invevitable in 2 different but related results.

Our second strike is what naturally proceeds out of the first strike: that is tribalism. For if things are more important than people, we should note that we will compete for those things in groups. And as loyalty to those groups increases, tribalism emerges and increases. 

What is tribalism? It is when loyalty to a group becomes so great that one loses their objectivity in judging both themselves and those outside their group. When one loses objectivity in judging themselves, they fail to see the weaknesses and faults of their own group. When one loses objectivity in judging those outside the group, they become unable to recongize the merits of those outside their group. Thus, what is right and wrong is determined by who does what to whom. This is moral relativity. Another term for this moral relativity is a 'gang mentality.'

And with tribalism also comes a group authoritarianism where failure to agree with or support one's group causes one to be angry and hostile toward others. The past and current reaction of some "patriotic" Americans to Colin Kaepernick's protests during the playing of the National Anthem is just an illustration of group authoritarianism. But that isn't the only example. The hostility that results from the sharp divisions between the police and minorities or the police and citizens who only verbally object to or question their actions provide other examples of authoritarianism. The sharp ideological divisions exist and the hostility between rival ideological groups withing our nation provide other examples of group authoritarianism. And the economic apartheid that exists between the upper economic class and the other classes or the disdain that some in the middle class have shown toward the lower economic class also serve as examples of tribalism.

As we can see, tribalism so permeates both the American society and it also does the same in the world. The current pending legislation that criminalizes support for BDS because it targets Israel in order to stop its Occupation against the Palestinians can provide multiple examples of tribalism both in terms of the loyalty some lawmakers have to Israel and also by some in the BDS community as they react to those not following BDS. And it isn't too difficult to see the tribalism that exists where there are violent clashes in the world.

Now whether or not we've struck out and are doomed depends on whether our current embrace of authoritarianism is a strike or is merely a foul ball hit out of play. For, as just described, authoritarianism is a part of tribalism as it exists within groups. One of the signs of authoritarianism is the showing of hostility to those who do not follow the traditions or recognized authority figures of one's group. Another sign of authoritarianism is that of viewing the world in black/white concepts where one is either right or wrong without having any partial merit or nuance. Signs of authoritarianism are listed at the following website but we should note that that perspective of authoritarianism was written to target conservatives. Authoritarianism exists in liberals and leftists as well (click here).

We see this authoritarianism in how willing people are to break convention or in how they react to the breaking of convention. An example of this authoritarianism exists in how we vote. When presented with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, very few people voted for third party candidates. In fact, those who did were told that they were throwing the election to one of the two major party candidates. Granted that none of the third party candidates were prize candidates, still that both of the two major party candidates posed more as threats to our society than as merely options for candidates for office was rather obvious.

Donald Trump's tweeting temper tantrums to any who questions him also becomes another side of authoritarianism. For there are two sides of authoritarianism: the active and passive sides. Those with power who are hostile to dissent show the active side. Those who are reluctant to or are even afraid to question the traditions or recognized authoritary figures show the passive side of authoritarianism. 

With authoritarianism comes the practice of determining truth not by examining the facts and logic involved in a statement or argument, but by the credentials of the source. Thus when Trump tweeted that Meryl Streep was an overrated actress after she spoke against his imitation of a disabled reporter, instead of challenging how she interpreted what he did, he attacked her credentials hoping that passive authoritarians would then ignore her. Authoritarians prefer to discredit their opponents rather than to engage in any kind of discussion with them.

By embracing authoritarianism, we lose the ability to challenge the abuse of power. And indeed, what we are seeing is a sharp rise in the abuse of power whether that power is exhibited by local police or those with supervisory positions at work or school, or it is exhibited at the national level. And with the other two strikes, we lose the motivation to challenge the abuse others as they exercise authority. We can see that loss of motivation even in those we might think of as rebels. For how many millennials do we see who are so glued to their gadgets that they become less and less aware of the world around them and start to lose ability to interact with people personally?

So we have at least two strikes. And whether we are denial of having struck out or we have merely hit a foul ball out of play remains to be seen. In any event, hope for substantial change without having to go through devastation and tremendous losses as has been suffered in the past is dwindling. What better time there is to take a blog break.

Monday, August 7, 2017

ONIM For August 7, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

Christian News

World News

Israel-Palestine News

Collusion News

Donald Trump News

Pick(s) Of The Litter

Friday, August 4, 2017

Is Christian Fundamentalism Doing All That?

Tim Rymel has a bone to pick with us religiously conservative Christians. His problem with us goes beyond our preaching of the Gospel and goes into the political causes pursued by many of us (click here for a previous article). And if one considers his own history, his problems with us has to do with his own personal experiences as well (click here for a bio). 

In the article being reviewed today, Rymel complains about the political direction we Christian Fundamentalists pursue and that is in part because of the degree of control we have over the American political scene (click here for the article). He characterizes our political values as being 'historically racist, homophobic, xenophobic, dangerously nationalistic, and exclusive.' The only characteristic that I see he misses is that we are also self-righteous. He has good reason for attributing these values and characteristics to us religiously conservative Christians. After all, didn't 81% of us Evangelicals vote for Trump? We should note that there was an anti-Trump movement among Evangelicals and Fundamentalists but most of them were still supporting politically conservative candidates, which, to be honest, pursued the same political values previously mentioned.

In addition to listing our political values,  he briefly mentions the intolerance and anti-scientific attitudes we Christian Fundamentalists often displayed. As for the anti-scientific attitudes, I believe that, historically speaking, he was only partially correct. Certainly with regard to evolution, he is correct. Christian Fundamentalists have shown a significant respect for some other parts of science. But certain scientific hot topics are seen as challenges to what we read in the Bible. Evolution has been one of those topics and climate change is the new kid on the block.

Then Rymel wrote about how us religiously conservative Christians were not always so politically involved. That our interest and participation in American politics is a more recent occurrence during the past few decades. And because of our political values, we pose a threat not just America's ability to progress, but to survive as well. And so far, there is not too much any objective reader, and unfortunately including my own fine fellow flaming Fundamentalist friends and family, should disagree with.

Where I disagree with Rymel is when he writes the following statement:

Fundamentalism - Christian, Islam, or any other religious ideology - is the antithesis of progression.

The reason why I disagree with this statement is because, at least for Christianity, he is blaming Christian Fundamentalism for what many Christian Fundamentalists do. Though I think that his blaming Fundamentalism is understandable considering his own personal experiences and the political causes that many of us religiously conservative Christians have promoted, that doesn't imply that our Fundamentalism is to blame.

Well, if Fundamentalists are impeding progress, then why not blame Fundamentalism itself? It is because, at least for us religiously conservative Christians, our opposition to what leads to progress is not a result of our Fundamentalism. Rather, it is a result of other causes and ideologies we have so closely associated with our faith.

What is Christian Fundamentalism? As it was originally defined in an effort to distinguish the authentic Christian faith from theological liberalism, Christian Fundamentalism is solely about the supernatural intervention of God in history through His Son Jesus Christ. Christian Fundamentalism is about 5 basic tenets of which 4 directly have to do with Christ. Christian Fundamentalism believes the following: 

  1. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born of a virgin after having been conceived by the Holy Spirit
  2. Jesus Christ died a 'substitutionary death' for those who believe in Him
  3. Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead
  4. That Jesus Christ performed physical miracles to prove His ministry
  5. The original autographs of the Scriptures are without error because they are God-breathed
Now there will be some slight variations in the listings depending on the agenda of the subgroup of Fundamentalists who are providing the list. What we should note is that Fundamentalism was defined in an effort to distinguish itself from the naturalism of theological liberalism of the early 20th century.

The importance of defining Christian Fundamentalism by its tenets rather than the varying behaviors and attitudes of his adherents is that it enables us to get to the core of what Chrsistian Fundamentalism is suppose to be about. And what I don't see in those tenets are any logical connections between Christian Fundamentalism and what Rymel has observed in Christian Fundamentalists. This means that a Christian Fundamentalist does not have to change his/her faith to avoid the pitfalls that many Christian Fundamentalists have experienced.

Then why do so many of us hold on to such harmful values and display such negative behaviors to others? I believe that what Rymel is complaining about has more to do with the other ideologies, causes, and groups many of us religiously conservative Christians have aligned ourselves with. Then why have so many of us aligned ourselves with these ideologies, causes, and groups when they produce such negative effects in our lives? The answer to that question probably requires that we experience more self-awareness than what we are comfortable with.

Rymel's criticisms are worth reading by us Christian Fundamentalists? Why? It is because, as we should have already understood, when we call ourselves Christians, everything we do, promote, and support is associated with the Gospel. And if we are interested in moving people to honor God by our lives rather than dishonoring him, we should seek the views of outsiders to see how we are coming across. That doesn't mean that we will always agree. For example, those who hold to the Scriptures can never agree with Rymel's views on sexual orientation. But we can still learn much from him. His article shows that.


Wednesday, August 2, 2017

Comments Which Conservatives Block From Their Blogs For August 2, 2017

July 31

To Joe Carter and his blogpost lamenting the fact that our society’s system is turning out more and more of what he calls Bolsheviks. The appeared on the Acton blog.

There are a few errors here. As much as Carter did well to mention the Bolsheviks, it still seems that, to him, all Socialists are Bolsheviks.  Here, Carter would do well to take out a student loan to study history. For the Bolsheviks were not the only Socialists in Russia. There were the Mensheviks as well. One of the major differences between the two groups is that the Bolsheviks insisted on immediate revolution while the Mensheviks were stagists. They wanted Socialism to become the system over a period of time because they felt that the people were not ready at the time. And mentioning the Mensheviks does not include the criticisms Lenin faced from fellow Socialists outside of Russia.,

Second, trying prove that a system works for a group by citing a single example is no proof at all. We could just as well cite an example of  another individual and, by the same logic Carter uses, prove that the Carter's free market for education is a house of horrors for all who enter.

Third, there is Carter's belief in the free market because it empowers individuals. Yes, the free market does empower individuals. But we should note that not all individuals are empowered the same. And many of those who are empowered discover that money is the source of even more power. Anyone who has studied business knows that power and money are not the same. When Martin Luther King Jr. was alive, he was a very powerful, influential, man; but he had no government authority. As for today, there are sources that tell us that we live in an oligarchy, not a Democracy. Now it isn't that all oligarchs have governmental positions, But because their wealth buys influence, these Oligarchs are powerful because  they can use their wealth to control the decisions made by our elected officials

Fourth, if we have a right to life, as stipulated in the Declaration Of Independence, then the free market does owe us some things that are necessary to survival if we are choosing to employ it as our economic system. What is the value in saying we have a right to life if our economic system denies us the means to make a living? And why are we denied opportunities to make a living? It is because the free market saw that offshoring jobs was more financially rewarding to a given company than paying workers here livable wages. And the same principle applies when we see the results of technological unemployment on the opportunities people had to make a living. For while technology has increased output, it has hurt the workers who are being replaced with machines. Soon a glut of people seeking certain kinds of jobs forms and there are not enough available jobs that pay liveable wages. And that leaves us with being guaranteed the right to life while not having sufficient opportunities at making a living.

Finally, Carter's free markets might appear preferable to control of the markets by those running the Soviet Union. But being told that those are our only two choices is a false dichotomy.What free markets also impose are laws and regulations that emanate from any working, democratic representative government. Such governments actually succeed at representing the people. With such governments and Carter's free markets is a contest between the Free Markets vs  the Rest Of The People. And Free Markets make the voice of the people mute.

Again, Carter does need to further his education before writing what he does about free markets and socialism.


To Joesph Pearce and his blogpost that tries to explain why progressives “hate” the West. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative Blog

If we are going to include the conquests of Spain, then the West represents a multitude of global empires. Of course, by empires what should be included is the conquests of different lands and the subjugation of people of different races who were not deemed worthy to rule themselves. With at least one of those empires was the ethnic cleansing of the land of its indigenous population. And with many of those empires came the enslaving of people based on racial or even ethnic lines.

While Pearce wants to focus on cultural values, political and economic structures and wants to represent those structures as the hope and aspirations of humankind, we should note that the Western empires worked against those political and economic structures existing in foreign lands and forced its cultural values on people as if they had nothing to teach.

Even today, the West forces its economic structures on other nations, and instead of conquering other nations by invasion, it uses proxy leaders who  deny people their rights. One only needs to consider the US interventions after WW II. Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Brazil in the 1960s, Vietnam and prohibiting the implementation of the Geneva Accords from the 1950s to the 1970s, ChilĂ© in 1973, Latin America in the 1980s and the resulting creation of MS-13, Haiti in the 1990s, and I could go on. And that doesn't include support for Israel's Occupation against the Palestinians. And, of course, that doesn't include the enslavement of Blacks and the following Jim Crow era in America itself. And again, we could go on. The current refugee crisis that is faced by Western nations started with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

If one wants an adequate picture of the West and of Capitalism, then one needs to focus on the Capitol from the Hunger Games movie series. Sure, the Capitol looked great from the inside, but its image becomes tarnished once one visits the districts. And that is the case the West and its capitalism.

We shouldn't be surprised at Pearce's perception of the West. it often mimics people's perception of their own nation. For the people of many nations have perceived themselves with their culture and so forth as being superior to all others. And with that perception of superiority comes the entitlement to rule over others for their sake. To Pearce and his love for his West, one should only say that believing that one is special is normal. And that the ability to step outside of one's own group to view one's own group is very difficult to obtain.
And of course, none of the above includes the fact that progressives have been very busy in participating in the crimes of the West. One only needs to look at the wars and interventions pursued by "progressive Presidents" of the United States.


Aug 1

To Joe Carter and the claim in his blogpost that it was government regulations, not the lack thereof, that caused the economic collapse of 2008. This appeared in the Acton blog.

In his enthusiasm to defend free markets, Carter misses some important points about the economic collapse of 2008. For example, if there were no bailouts from the government, then economic recovery would next to impossible. But suppose those who acted so recklessly did so knowing that there would be bailouts. What do we get?

First, the financial institutions that suffered the largest losses were those that were over-leveraged the most, not those institutions that actually lent the money out. And why were those institutions over-leveraged? It was because either the lack of enforcement of then current regulations or the financial sectors fight to prevent certain financial products from being regulated. One such product allowed for multiple parties to buy loan insurance on loans they did not take. This would be like the neighborhood buying fire insurance on the same house in the neighborhood. What could go wrong there?
But even before that, the idea of bundling loans and then selling them as financial products that get the institution that makes the original loan not have to worry about being paid back. Thus, it wasn't just the needy who could apply for a risky loan, but unsuspecting entrepreneurs as well. Again, what could go wrong there?

And then there was no effective government oversight of the ratings agencies so that they could profit by giving artificially high ratings to financial products that carried risky loans. Here we have to ask: What did go wrong here?
And last for this list but not least, you had the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. That act created two kinds of banking: commercial and investment. Glass-Steagall was enacted in 1933 and was repealed in 1999. And between those dates, we didn't have a financial collapse.

In his zeal to defend Free Markets, Carter not only is selective in the details about the government interventions he lists, some of his statements gloss over important details about how government intervenes in the economy. And he does so not to try to factually prove his point, but in order to be persuasive. In addition, Carter expresses no criticisms of the some of the faulty financial products being sold that contributed greatly to the economic collapse. At this point, it is difficult to say whether Carter's view of free markets has more influence on how he reads the Bible than vice-versa. For instead of saying that government should have pursued a more wise and intelligent approach to regulating the markets, he opts for saying that there should be little to no government oversight or intervention.  If he is not careful to reign in and modify his approach, Carter will be a representative of a part of the Christian Church that is to the support of those with wealth and power here, what the dominant branches of the Church were in supporting wealth and power prior to the French, Russian, and Spanish Revolutions.


To Rev Ben Johnson and his blogpost that free trade is good stewardship of the earth. This appeared in the Acton blog.

This article doesn't make sense. When talking about the environment, he tries to dispel the notion that neoliberalism hurts the environment  by an article written by a professor of finance about some EU farming and fishing rules that hurt the environment and how Brexit eliminated those problems. He makes the claim that neoliberal economics has produced the greatest wealth the world has known. But he neglects to mention the growing wealth disparity both within nations and between nations which has come with neoliberalism. In addition, he doesn't try to compare neoliberal economic performance with that of the Bretton-Woods system. In fact, he might not even be aware of the existence of the latter let alone the comparison. In addition, we should note that the startup of neoliberal economic systems have often occurred during trying times or dictatorships. ChilĂ© and Argentina in the 70s, Poland after their solidarity movement succeeded, and Russia during Yeltsin's presidency part of which occurred when he ordered the military to fire on the Parliament serve as examples. We should note that introducing neoliberalism to Russia required Gorbachev to step down otherwise loans needed by Russia could not be made. Gorbachev had wanted to model the Russian economic system after what was being practiced in Scandinavia.

Rev. Johnson does not mention the compromise of national sovereignty that takes place with free trade. The WTO, which is a free trade organization, threatened the US with billions of dollars approved retaliatory tariffs  if the US did not repeal its newly passed law that required the origin of the meat sold here be printed on the package for consumers to know. That decision was made by the WTO and no regard for any Constitutional issues were shown. Please  understand that one of the measurements for our laws to meet are constitutionally defined and a foreign organization ruled against the US without regard for The Constitution. Likewise, if the TPP had passed, then corporations could sue the US for laws passed that were perceived as having hurt the profits of these corporations. And those lawsuits would be held in a TPP tribunal, not an American court of law.

Nor does Rev. Johnson mention that much of the wealth built up in America is due to the past when free trade was not practiced. America has relied on protectionist policies for much of its history. That protectionism allowed America to build up certain industries that free trade has been destroying. Yes, we have the strongest economy in the world, but today more and more of America's economic strength is located in the financial sector while manufacturing has been shipped elsewhere to maximize profits for shareholders. Insisting that less developed nations must rely on free trade and prohibiting them from using protectionism to build their own economies is called 'kicking away the ladder.' In addition, neoliberalism has produced quite a few instances of workers having to work for poverty wages and corporations relying on government subsidizing their payrolls as low-paid employees must rely on government assistance programs.

Of course, Rev. Johnson did set out to show that free trade helps the environment. However, neoliberalism, of which free trade is a part, is occurring when the environment is being pushed to the breaking point in terms of it being able to sustain the kind of life we know now in the future. That pushing of the environment is not just seen in the transportation of goods, but in the manufacturing and and consumption of goods as well. And the more neoliberalism, the less environmental regulations that mus be met.

Yes, neoliberalism has produced a lot of wealth. But it has also produced one of the greatest consolidations of wealth in history and that consolidation of wealth leads to a consolidation of political power in the private sector. In fact, that consolidation of political power in the private sector has contributed to America transitioning from a democracy to an oligarchy (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 ). But at least our loss of democracy has been more gradual and soft than what has occurred elsewhere for the sake of neoliberalism.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

The Theme Of Trump's Presidency: The Privileges Of Power

It was Scaramucci's long tenure as part of President Trump's staff that finally helped me finally realize what Trump's Presidency is all about. It is all about the perks one enjoys when one has power.

Why would Scaramucci's long standing appointment help me see what many others had perceived before? And why call his time at the White House long when he lasted around 10 days? The answer to the latter question is that a 10-day stint for a person of Scaramucci's character is a very long time. But it was Scaramucci's rant against White House other members of Trump's White House team that initially went unpunished that clued me in. How could one in Scaramucci's position speak publicly like he did and not even be reprimanded the same day? Not having to exercise self-restraint was a perk of power that Scaramucci temporarily enjoyed. And it is a privilege that President Trump still enjoys.

But Trump's theme of enjoying the privileges of power began with his campaign promises to both put America first and to rebuild our decimated military. We should note a past infamous candidate who promised to put their nation first and then did all he could to destroy the world. Of course, that was Adolph Hitler. In fact, Dr. Seuss mocked such an attitude that directed America's rejection of Jewish immigrants from Germany when Hitler was in charge (click here). We should also note that the call to rebuild the military is a Republican mantra that is chanted in each election where the sitting President is a Democrat.

This combination of putting America first and expanding our power so that no one would dare challenge us is the first indication of Trump's love of the privileges of power. And that love of the privileges of power for America really appealed to his authoritarian followers. Of course, the second sign followed on the heels of the first sign. That second sign was Trump's promise to his followers who attended his rallies that he would pay their legal fees if they put protesters at the rallies in their place.

Trump's assumption of privileges has only continued from his refusal to release his tax returns to his threats against legislators who don't vote his way to his pondering of whether he could pardon himself to his constant trips to Mara Lago where a business interest of his profits while he plays golf on a regular basis. In these cases, Trump shows that, unlike the rest of us, he doesn't have to be accountable to others.

But Trump doesn't just enjoy the privileges of power for himself. He has celebrated the privileges of others who are in power as well from Duterte in Philippines to Putin in Russia while praising Kim Jung-Un. In addition, Trump encouraged NYPD officers to be rough with those from the MS-13 gang. True, the members of this gang take pride in showing a degree of brutality that is beyond the pale. But Trump should know that American brutality gave birth to this gang during the 1980s in El Salvador as US trained El Salvadoran military and paramilitary troops tortured and murdered many citizens. MS-13 was merely a group that had learned to survive the atrocities we trained troops to commit.

True, Scaramucci's privileges have been revoked by the new chief of staff, retired Marine General John Kelly. Apparently, Kelly's Marine Corps training and experience had adequately prepared him to handle a front stabber like Scaramucci. So at least power does not mean that one does not have to exercise self-restraint when representing the Administration to the public. But what about the other situations where Trump, and those who are with him, revel in not having to either exercise self-restraint or be accountable?

We should not be surprised that the US has elected an autocratic leader in Donald Trump. Our religious heritage has helped create a highly authoritarian culture in this nation where power is king and nuance is nothing. And it is only when we can break free from that authoritarian mindset that we can actually defang a power hungry President. We can neither wait for Congress to impeach him nor for Mueller to indict him. That is because, though we might sincerely home for either event, neither one is guaranteed. For as long as we are passive authoritarians in this nation,  people like Trump will seek power for the privileges it renders them. And they will use those privileges to put them way above the rest of us.

Monday, July 31, 2017

ONIM For July 31, 2017

If you are not sure about the validity of a news story linked to below, you can use  mediabiasfactcheck.com to check out the credibility of the source of most of the stories linked to here.

Christian News

World News

Israel-Palestine News

Collusion News

Donald Trump News

Pick(s) Of The Litter