Valletta said:

Commander Gregory K. Bovino described those arrested as having "significant criminal and immigration history."
"81, many of whom had significant criminal and immigration history, are off the streets," Bovino said, adding that more details about those apprehended would be released on social media.

Border Patrol agents arrests 81 people on first day of Charlotte operation

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents arrested 81 people in Charlotte on the first day of the "Charlotte's Web" operation, according to Commander Gregory Bovino.

www.wcnc.com

Crimes continue to be stopped around the country.

Click to expand...

rambot said:

"Beautiful women" and fellows with "Short man syndrome".

Click to expand...

wing2000 said:

“Things happen,” Trump said when asked about Khashoggi’s killing. Khashoggi, who was critic of the regime, was also a U.S. resident.

Click to expand...

FireDragon76 said:

I don't buy leather or honey.

I'm probably not the strictest vegan, though. I don't take veganism to impractical lengths. There are all kinds of possible picayune debates that vegans can have about minutiae.

Click to expand...

jacks said:

Q. What's for dinner?
A. Whatever is on sale.

I've gone though my whole life this way and spend very little on food. And avoid process food, since it is always more expensive than putting some effort into cooking.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

Here is a clip from Rob's video
View attachment 373329

And here is the original, so you can get a better look.
View attachment 373330

Notice that they are looking through the top half of the lens (which is bending light downwards, ie. what happens with atmospheric refraction). With Rob's kit, he has you looking through the bottom half of the lens which is bending light upwards (ie. the complete opposite of what happens with atmospheric refraction). Rob is a fraud.

Here's a link to the video Rob took his clip from
Login to view embedded media
To quote Rob Skiba from the end of his video:

Click to expand...

GOP sends 'menacing texts' to voters ordering them to un-sign petition opposing gerrymandering: report​

Michie said:

In some progressive circles of Christianity in the United States, the term "Kin-dom" has become increasingly used in recent decades as another name for "Kingdom," as in "God's Kin-dom" or "the Kin-dom of Jesus."

At the United Methodist Church General Conference held last year, for example, openly lesbian Bishop Karen Oliveto preached a sermon to delegates that referenced the phrase.

In an article published last month, Presbyterian News Service, the news outlet of the Presbyterian Church (USA), quoted a pastor who spoke of "standing on the kin-dom side of history."

But where does the term come from, and why was it created?

The first confirmed use of the term came from Catholic modernist theologian Ada Maria Isasi Diaz, a theological liberal who spoke of the concept in a 1996 book titled Mujerista Theology: A Theology for the Twenty-first Century.

The phrase has gained popularity among those who seek what they believe is a less patriarchal or imperial description of the Kingdom of God.

Continued below.

What is God’s ‘Kin-dom’?

A look into the origins of the term Kin-dom and the dispute over its validity

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

DaisyDay said:

So, nothing has come of this blatant corruption. What a surprise.

Click to expand...

chevyontheriver said:

I finally was able to read it.

And yes, my issue is with cardinal Fernandez. He's the author of that book, 'Heal Me With Your Mouth' which was a treatise on kissing. His other book was even worse, and he tried to bury it. But he was a friend of pope Francis, and thus promoted way beyond the merits of his competence. He was given the position as head of the DDF in one of the strangest appointments ever, only after pope Francis got incredible heat for proposing someone even worse for the same job. Cardinal Fernandez was the author of the document 'Fiducia supplicans', which proposed that we can now bless married homosexuals, if only it is an impromptu blessing not of them as a couple but as two independent blessings in a non-liturgical and spontaneous act clearly different from an actual wedding. This was so wrong on the face of itthat most of the bishops in Africa, and at least a third of the bishops around the world were in formal dissent from this document and cardinal Fernandez had to back down. The document still stands, with a follower or two here and there but Fernandez has the egg on his face and the document has no power.

That Fernandez.

Now I sort of agree that speaking about Mary as co-redemptrix and as mediator of all graces is not terribly opportune. And that because most Protestants would go all apoplectic over mention of such things even if I went into the ten minute explanation of what is and is not involved with those terms. Most Protestants are invincibly ignorant on such matters and cannot endure hearing such things. So why bother? Many Protestants go apoplectic too about Mary as the mother of God, thinking that we have decided that she gave birth to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Discussions with those sorts of people is also inopportune. That is the extent of my marginal agreement with MPF.

Actually, much of the document appears to be from notes compiled years ago, before cardinal Fernandez and before pope Francis. That part, the historical discussion of past use of the terms, seems OK. Selective though, as there are some glaring omissions of past usage by popes and by Vatican II. That part leaves it understood that Mary as co-redemptrix or as mother of all graces are not in error. But that was the position of pope Benedict, who decided that is was not opportune to define those terms as dogma while he was pope. He did not rule against them, nor rule for them, but deferred the whole discussion.

This new document does not rule against believing in those two terms. It just says it is 'always inappropriate' to speak using those terms. I consider this to be a 'silencing' rather than a doctrinal statement. Fernandez could have made a doctrinal statement against those two titles of Mary. He didn't. He kind of left that an open question. But he expects us to bite our tongues nonetheless. That is a disciplinary matter. One that I was following even without his special encouragement to bite my tongue.

Cardinal Fernandez made a special point that this document, approved by pope Leo, is now part of the Magisterial teaching of the faith. Which is him implying that this is infallible teaching. Ha! It's a very fallible disciplinary matter, imprudent in that it raised an issue that very few Catholics knew anything about, and probably advanced the cause of Mary as co-redemptrix and as mother of all graces well beyond anything else that has been done in the last 100 years. In that sense an epic fail. Which is par for the course for things cardinal Fernandez touches.

Cardinal Fernandez is no expert on Catholic theology. His predecessors, cardinal Mueller and cardinal Ratzinger were such experts. I hope cardinal Mueller has some comments on MPF some time soon. In the mean time there have been plenty of comments on how inopportune and confused and pretentious MPF is. And I agree. Even while I wouldn't be touting Mary as co-redemptrix or mother of all graces anyway.

Click to expand...

JohnB445 said:

For example, a young man just starting college is murdered. He didn't get to live a long life, while someone else becomes a believer in their 40's.

The person in their 40's had more time to accept Jesus, yet the young man didn't. It seems unfair, but what does the Bible say?

Was the young man probably never would have been a believer anyway? Are we sometimes saved not only because we accepted Jesus, but by chance we survived long enough to accept Jesus as our God? Or does this not make any sense?

Click to expand...

Rob Skiba said:

You don't get to pick the anomalies that seem to agree with your views and ignore the common observations that don't and still call yourself an honest investigator

Click to expand...