Pew Research Center released a new study that shows Americans are split down Republican and Democrat party lines in their view of whether Trump should be banned from social media. What is your takeaway? Here are some of my thoughts. I'm sure yours will be more cogent.
The video of Peter with his head stuck in the gate now has almost 550K views on YouTube so Lynn says he can stay a little longer. This is his latest antic with the chicken food.
Sassy the horse is not the only one who wears a saddle anymore.
WINE:
http://alisonwinepromo.com/
COD LIVER/BUTTER OIL (Promo Code "ALISON" ):
https://www.greenpasture.org/
A good ruling. "Go after the bad ones" turned into a sycophant witch hunt.
Federal Judge Halts Immigration Raid Tactics in Los Angeles
https://archive.ph/hIK1L
"A federal judge blocked Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from stopping and detaining people based solely on their skin color without probable cause and denying detainees the right to a lawyer.
...'
Possibly the best, and least reported, news of the week appeared in Monday’s New York Times, below the headline, “I.R.S. Says Churches Can Endorse Candidates From the Pulpit.” It’s another Trump promise, fulfilled.
image 12.png
The Johnson Amendment is a 1954 statute that says nonprofit organizations —501c3’s, including churches— may not endorse or oppose political candidates if they want to keep their tax-exempt status.
It was introduced by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, mostly to stop some Texas nonprofits from attacking him during a campaign. It passed quietly, with no debate, and over time, it became a kind of political muzzle for religious groups: preach all you want, but you can’t stump.
In theory, the rule applied to all tax-exempt nonprofits, but in practice, the IRS almost never enforced it, especially against churches. It was more of an effective threat than an actual hammer— used selectively, inconsistently, and often politically. For years, conservative churches complied but argued that the rule...
