President Joe Biden has the lowest job approval rating of any chief executive in the past 15 years, a new ABC News/Ipsos poll found. Biden’s approval rating is 33%, the lowest since then-President George W. Bush in 2006-2008, ABC News reported. Biden also has a 58% disapproval rating. Such negative approval/disapproval numbers could suggest support of the current House GOP’s investigation of Biden’s alleged influence peddling and potential impeachment.
The ABC/Ipsos poll also focused on election comparisons
Trump Dominates in Party Vote, ABC Poll: ‘Satisfactory as Party Nominee’
The poll shows that 72% of Republicans support former President Donald Trump as their nominee.
By comparison, just 57% of Democrats said they would be satisfied with him as their party’s nominee.
Younger Blacks Abandon Biden, ABC Poll: Black Approval
Biden’s job approval rating is 21 points below average among Blacks, compared with 15 points below average among Hispanic people, compared with 6 points among white people.
Black voters, once a lock to back Democrats, shows that the demographic no longer guaranteed to support the party’s candidates. Biden’s support among Blacks falls sharply, the poll shows, with younger Blacks:
32% of Blacks under 50 approve of Biden
65% of Blacks 50 and over approve of the president.
Trump More Fit for Job, ABC Poll: Biden vs. Trump
Asked about the candidates’ mental fitess for the presidency, 47% supported Trump, 77, versus 28% for Biden, 81.
On the question of physical fitness, 57% supported Trump, while 28% backed Biden.
Economy Under Biden, ABC Poll: US Rejects Handling
With the economy always a top issue, if not the No. 1 issue for voters in a presidential election, Biden’s standing is poor. More than half of the respondents (56%) said they disapprove of Biden’s handling of the economy, while 31% approved. The poll also indicates that 71% said the economy is in bad shape, while 24% said he economy was good.
The ABC News/Ipsos poll was conducted Jan. 4-8 among a random national sample of 2,228 adults.
Some White House staffers say President Joe Biden doesn’t realize how old he can come across to others, Axios reported. Biden likes to tell friends and family, “I feel so much younger than my age.”
A former official, however, told Axios: “His age is clearly something voters are worried about, fairly or not, and yelling, ‘Nuh-uh’ isn’t cutting it.”
With polls showing that more than 70% of voters have concerns about Biden, 81, serving a second term, his reluctance to acknowledge his physical limitations is causing tension on his team, Axios reported Tuesday. Current and former aides to Biden say he often pushes to do more travel and events than they recommend. Pushing up against his limits sometimes “creates a cycle” in which he wears out himself and then appears fatigued during public events, Axios reported.
“He is his own worst enemy when it comes to his schedule,” a former Biden aide said, according to Axios.
Biden has shown frustration with the perception that he’s too old to be president.
“With regard to age, I can’t even say, I guess, how old I am, I can’t even say the number. It doesn’t register with me,” he said in April.
Despite his sensitivity about his age, Biden in recent months has accepted changes to help him stay healthy and avoid tripping. He’s using the shorter stairs on Air Force One and wearing tennis shoes more often, Axios reported.
Reuters reported last month that Biden’s age has become a defining part of the 2024 campaign. Even some Democrats have questions about his age. Biden entered office as the oldest president and would be 86 at the end of a second term.
Former President Donald Trump, the clear front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, frequently says Biden is too old for the job.
“We have a man that – he can’t even walk off a stage,” Trump, 77, said at a campaign rally in New Hampshire in October, Spectrum News reported. “He walks off the stage, just finishes his speech – he has no idea.”
First lady Jill Biden and her staff are involved in forming the president’s schedule.
A White House official told Axios that the Bidens keep “an eye on one another’s schedules for the sake of balance — and they are far from the only couple in the administration who does that.”
In his memoir, “Promise Me, Dad,” Joe Biden wrote that Jill Biden would tell her husband’s then-chief of staff, Steve Ricchetti, “Joe’s working too hard. He’s exhausted. He’s not sleeping. It’s going to kill him.”
Four indictments of Donald Trump have so far done no more to stop him than two earlier impeachments did. He remains easily the front-runner in the Republican primaries, and in some polls is running equal with President Biden. But now a theory defended by able legal scholars has emerged, arguing that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from serving as president.
Even if Trump secures enough electoral votes to win the presidency next year, legal Professors Michael Paulsen and Will Baude argue, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution would disqualify him from federal office. Former Judge Michael Luttig and Professor Laurence Tribe have enthusiastically seconded the theory. While their theory about the continuing relevance of the Constitution’s insurrection clause strikes us as correct, they err in believing that anyone, down to the lowest county election worker, has the right to strike Trump from the ballot.
Ratified in 1868, the 14th Amendment is a load-bearing constitutional pillar erected during the Reconstruction period. Section 3 deals with the treatment of former state and federal officials, and their allies, who had taken sides with the Confederacy in the Civil War:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Although Section 3 unquestionably applied to Confederates, its text contains nothing limiting it to the Civil War. Rather, it has continuing relevance to any future “insurrection or rebellion.” Although it does not explicitly refer to presidents or presidential candidates, comparison with other constitutional texts referring to “officer[s]” supports the interpretation that it applies to the presidency too.
Section 3 distinguishes between “rebellion” and “insurrection,” and we have a contemporary guide to the meaning of that distinction. In the Prize Cases (1863), the Supreme Court declared that “[i]nsurrection against a government may or may not culminate in an organized rebellion, but a civil war always begins by insurrection against the lawful authority of the Government.” “Insurrection” therefore refers to political violence at a level lower or less organized than an “organized rebellion,” though it may develop into that. Trump may have been an “insurrectionist” but not a “rebel.”
But was he even an “insurrectionist”? In their Atlantic piece, Luttig and Tribe find the answer obvious: “We believe that any disinterested observer who witnessed that bloody assault on the temple of our democracy, and anyone who learns about the many failed schemes to bloodlessly overturn the election before that, would have to come to the same conclusion.”
But that view is not universally shared. Finding “disinterested observers” in a country marked by passionate disagreements over Donald Trump is no easy task. Despite the scenes of the attack on the Capitol and extensive investigations, the American people do not seem to agree that Trump took part in an insurrection or rebellion. Almost half the respondents in a 2022 CBS poll rejected the claim that the events of Jan. 6 were an actual “insurrection” (with the divide tracking partisan lines), and 76 percent viewed it as a “protest gone too far.”
Other considerations also call into question the claim that Trump instigated an “insurrection” in the constitutional sense. If it were clear that Trump engaged in insurrection, the Justice Department should have acted on the Jan. 6 Committee’s referral for prosecution on that charge. Special Counsel Jack Smith should have indicted him for insurrection or seditious conspiracy, which remain federal crimes. If it were obvious that Trump had committed insurrection, Congress should have convicted him in the two weeks between Jan. 6 and Inauguration Day. Instead, the House impeached Trump for indictment to insurrection but the Senate acquitted him.
The Senate’s acquittal is the only official finding by a federal or state institution on the question of whether Trump committed insurrection. The failure of the special counsel to charge insurrection and the Senate to convict in the second impeachment highlights a serious flaw in the academic theory of disqualification.
According to Luttig and Tribe, it appears self-evident that Trump committed insurrection. They assume Trump violated the law without any definitive finding by any federal authority. According to their view, he must carry the burden of proof to show he is not guilty of insurrection or rebellion — a process that achieves the very opposite of our Constitution’s guarantee of due process, which, it so happens, is not just provided for by the Fifth Amendment, but reaffirmed in the same 14th Amendment that contains the disqualification clause. It would be like requiring Barak Obama to prove he was native-born (a constitutional prerequisite for being president) if state election officials disqualified him for being foreign-born.
The Electoral College Chooses Presidents, Not State Officials
If this academic view were correct, it would throw our electoral system into chaos. One of the chief virtues of the Electoral College system is that it decentralizes the selection of the president: State legislatures decide the manner for choosing electors, with each state receiving votes equal to its representation in the House and Senate. States run the elections, which means that hundreds, if not thousands, of city, county, and state officials could execute this unilateral finding of insurrection. A county state election official, for example, could choose to remove Trump’s name from printed ballots or refuse to count any votes in his favor. A state court could order Trump barred from the election. A state governor could refuse to certify any electoral votes in his favor. The decentralization of our electoral system could allow a single official, especially from a battleground state, to sway the outcome of a close race in the 2024 presidential election.
Allowing a single state to wield this much power over the federal government runs counter to broader federalism principles articulated by the Supreme Court. In our nation’s most important decision on the balance of power between the national government and the states, McCullough v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall held that a single state could not impose a tax on the Bank of the United States. Marshall famously observed that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.”
Marshall may well have frowned upon single state officials deciding to eliminate candidates for federal office on their own initiative. The Supreme Court lent further support for this idea in United States Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), which held that states could not effectively add new qualifications for congressional candidates by barring long-time incumbents from appearing on the ballot. Writing for the majority, Justice Stevens argued that allowing states to add term limits as a qualification for their congressional elections conflicted with “the uniformity and national character [of Congress] that the framers sought to ensure.” Allowing state election officials to decide for themselves whether someone has incited or committed insurrection, without any meaningful trial or equivalent proceeding, would give states the ability to achieve what term limits forbid.
Congress Has Other Means of Enforcement
We are not arguing that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment lacks the means of enforcement (though not every official who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution has such enforcement power). Each branch of the federal government can honor Section 3 in the course of executing its unique constitutional functions. Article I of the Constitution allows Congress to sentence an impeached president not just to removal from office, but also disqualification from office in the future. Congress could pass a statute disqualifying named insurrectionists from office — we think this would not qualify as an unconstitutional bill of attainder — or set out criteria for judicial determination.
Using its enforcement power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, Congress could conceivably establish a specialized tribunal for the handling of insurrectionists. The president could detain suspected insurrectionists, subject ultimately to judicial review under a writ of habeas corpus, or prosecute them under the federal law of insurrection and seditious conspiracy. Federal courts will have the ultimate say, except in cases of unilateral congressional action, such as lifting a disqualification by supermajority votes, because they will make the final judgment on any prosecutions and executive detentions.
We are not apologists for Trump’s spreading of baseless claims of electoral fraud or his efforts to stop the electoral count on Jan. 6. But as with the weak charges brought by the special counsel, the effort to hold Trump accountable for his actions should not depend on a warping of our constitutional system. Prosecutors should charge him with insurrection if they can prove it and have that conviction sustained on appeal. Congress should disqualify Trump if it can agree he committed the crime. Ultimately, the American people will decide Trump’s responsibility for the events of Jan. 6, but at the ballot box in 2024’s nominating and general elections for president.
John Yoo is the Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley, Nonresident Senior Fellow at The American Enterprise Institute, and a Visiting Fellow at The Hoover Institution. Robert Delahunty is a Fellow of the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life in Washington, DC.
The House Oversight and Accountability Committee plans to subpoena President Joe Biden and first son Hunter over allegations they peddled influence during foreign business dealings to secure millions of dollars in payoffs. Panel Chair James Comer, R-Ky., on Wednesday delivered a third round of bank records, bringing the official paper trail of payments to more than $20 million from Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan during Joe Biden’s vice presidency in the Obama administration.
“It’s clear Joe Biden knew about his son’s business dealings, lied to the American people, & allowed himself to be ‘the brand’ sold to enrich the Bidens while he was VP of the United States,” Comer tweeted Thursday morning.
“This is public corruption at the highest levels of our federal government.”
Comer on Thursday told Fox Business, “This is always going to end with the Bidens coming in front of the committee. We are going to subpoena the family.”
The chair added that with all the opposition and obstruction from the Bidens’ attorneys, “we know this is going to end up in court when we subpoena the Bidens.”
The president’s legal counsel claims the latest allegations do not tie Joe Biden to Hunter Biden’s foreign influence peddling.
Appearing Wednesday on Newsmax, Comer said the president’s team should be more transparent with requests for information.
“If the president has done nothing wrong, then they should allow us to see their personal bank records,” Comer told “Rob Schmitt Tonight.” “If there’s nothing to hide, then they should be transparent with us, with their financial records, and stop obstructing and intimidating our witnesses and blocking us from more bank records.”
Joe Biden snapped at a reporter Wednesday after being asked about congressional testimony by Devon Archer, a former business associate of Hunter Biden.
“I never talked business with anybody, and I knew you’d have a lousy question,” Biden told the reporter, who then asked why it was a lousy question.
“Because it’s not true,” the president said before walking away.
Archer last week told congressional investigators that then-Vice President Joe Biden joined Hunter Biden’s calls during business meetings and dinners, where foreign businessmen were present and heard his voice, which was the “prize” in luring foreign businesses to pay to send “signals” to the highest levels of the Obama White House.
The left is at it again, and conservatives need to be on high alert. The left has been pushing for a national popular vote to elect the president of the United States for years. Since 2017, 10 more states have either signed the National Popular Vote bill into law or approved the bill in one state legislative chamber. This should be a grave concern because it directly undermines the electoral system established by our Constitution. If not stopped, the American system of presidential elections will be changed potentially forever.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It has been enacted by 15 state legislatures plus Washington, D.C., and passed in 41 legislative chambers in 24 states. For the proposal to become the law of the land, enough states totaling at least 270 electoral votes would be required to enact the law, and states would then commit their electoral votes to the candidate with the most popular votes nationally, regardless of which candidate won at the state level.
The states that have enacted the compact represent 195 electoral votes: Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Vermont, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, California, New York, and the District of Columbia. States with passage in one chamber include Arkansas, Arizona, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Successful passage in all of these states represents 283 electoral votes, enough to change the law and make our presidential election decided via popular vote rather than the Electoral College.
Democrats have long been unhappy with the electoral process, unless, of course, their candidate won. When their candidate loses, debate begins anew about how unfair the Electoral College is. The argument is always the same. Since we conduct our elections by democratic process, it makes sense to elect our nation’s executive according to the will of the majority with a voting plurality.
Five times, presidential candidates have won elections without the popular vote: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), George W. Bush (2000), and Donald Trump (2016).
Minority and Less Populated Areas Would Lack Representation
The commonly heard sentiment during election cycles is “every vote matters.” However, what is not fair is that if the president is elected based on a plurality, then the minority would not have a chance of having their candidate elected. Only the concerns and interests of more heavily populated areas, such as the East and West coast cities, would be represented. Interests of the minority and less populated areas would naturally be set aside and of little interest to future presidential candidates. Worse, the executive would be beholden and accountable solely to the majority.
This condition was not the intent of our founders. Their intent was to ensure that the nation’s highest executive, as well as the executive branch, represented the interests of all Americans regardless of political affiliation. A future president would need to appeal to those concerned about not just national but also regional issues.
Further, the Electoral College provided a means to disburse and decentralize power. State electors are elected just days before and are unknown until just prior to an election to prevent undue influence to stay true to the people’s votes in their states. Our founders framed it so as to prevent collusion and cabalist (their word) behavior, preclude violence, and thwart involvement of foreign powers.
Cabalism Comes to Light
Following the 2020 election, our founders’ concerns came to light and fruition. Our national elections have been fraught with cabalist behavior, undue influence, numerous forms of cheating, as well as foreign interference. The tyranny they feared came to pass, driven by collusion among the administrative state, the legislative branch, legacy media, Big Tech, and nongovernmental organizations. An independent executive branch separate from the legislature has become an illusion.
In Federalist Paper 68, Alexander Hamilton wrote, “the process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of the president will never fall with a lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and a little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first owners of a single state, but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union.” Hamilton would have been appalled today to have witnessed the travesty undermining his sentiment.
So why does all this matter?
An Oppressive Majority
It matters because the idea of a national popular vote is gaining steam and if adopted by enough states, the Electoral College will become irrelevant. Minority voter interests will no longer matter at the national level. Only the whims of the majority will. And the result will be precisely why Socrates opposed a democratic form of government. Once a majority is established, it finds a way to remain permanent, and the majority class will become oppressive to the minority class. There will be no means to overturn the majority, no matter how skewed the majority’s view may be.
The implications for the country are vast and would make the United States just another oppressive tyrannical state. The ultimate reason for the success of the U.S. was that its founders held a belief that we are created and guided by a higher power, and they recognized that men are inherently corruptible. They implemented controls to prevent those with ambitions from achieving outright power over the minority, thus making the U.S. unique among nations.
Left Looks to Crush the Right
The left’s tactics are in high gear, accelerating in an attempt to overwhelm conservatives and Republicans to a tipping point at which the left acquires complete control and the right becomes powerless.
The left’s all-out assault has become abundantly clear since President Joe Biden took office. As soon as Democrats attained the presidency and the narrowest of majorities in the House and Senate, they pressed forward with their agenda, nearly unimpeded had it not been for the likes of Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and perhaps divine intervention.
Whether changing voting laws in its favor, creating crises to circumvent the laws already in place, continually flooding the courts with litigation designed to throw sand in the gears of transparent elections, or changing the electoral process altogether, the left’s efforts to gain and retain control, by any means necessary, will not relent.
In addition to ongoing election integrity efforts across the nation, it is imperative that conservatives push back attempts to advance a national popular vote. It is incumbent upon individual citizens to tell their state representatives that it is not the desire of the people to circumvent the constitutional process for electing our president.
Failure to stop a national popular vote could take generations to reverse.
Andrew Morgan is a former deputy assistant secretary of the Army, a senior executive within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and a retired U.S. Navy captain. He received his MBA from George Washington University and master’s from National Defense University.
Eric Holder’s Justice Department threatened Fox News Reporter James Rosen as a co-conspirator under the espionage act. Except Holder never really intended to charge Rosen. It was all a pretext to spy on his phone calls and emails to find out who in the government was leaking information to him.
The Obama administration also spied on the phone records of Associated Press journalists.
This week Joy Behar, of all people, outed James Clapper for spying on the Trump campaign. Clapper claimed Trump should be happy about this because his agent was really spying on Russians.
Looks like Michael Cohen could afford to pay Stormy Daniels $130,000. Though, based on past behavior, I wonder if he first tried to sell her access to the president for a future “encounter.”
Swamp Fox
According to The Hill he tried to hit up the Qatari government for a cool million in exchange for access. Also on Cohen’s client access list were Novartis and ATT.
The Devin Nunes memo released last Friday described an FBI application to the FISA court. The FBI was seeking permission to spy on Carter Page, a low level Trump advisor with Russian contacts. The application included the infamous Christoper Steele Trump dossier.
That would be the same dossier that former FBI Director Comey said contained “salacious and unverified” information. Not only that, the Clinton campaign funded the thing and possibly contributed information to it.
Comey’s response when he read the memo – That’s it?
It looks like we might not have corrupt campaign funding to kick around anymore. The 2020 presidential field is filling up with billionaire celebrities who can fund their own campaign corruption. And that’s not to mention the free publicity they’ll get.
Oprah gave a speech at the Golden Globes setting off speculation she wants to be president. Her celebrity colleagues went wild. Presumably she’ll run as a Democrat.
Celebrity Billionaire Presidency
And Mark Cuban, the celebrity billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks, has long been considering throwing his NBA championship ring in the ring. If he does so, he says he’ll run as a Republican. Though, as of November he said there’s only a 10% chance he’ll do it.
President Trump (in his speech to the U.N.): “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.”
Rocket Man (in his speech responding to Trump):“I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire.”
CNN adds that North Korea’s foreign minister suggested a possible hydrogen bomb test over the Pacific might be in order.
Rocket Man Responds
The NYT has the full text of Kim Jong Un’s response to Trump’s U.N. threat here:
The speech made by the U.S. president in his maiden address on the U.N. arena in the prevailing serious circumstances, in which the situation on the Korean Peninsula has been rendered tense as never before and is inching closer to a touch-and-go state, is arousing worldwide concern.
Shaping the general idea of what he would say, I expected he would make stereotyped, prepared remarks a little different from what he used to utter in his office on the spur of the moment as he had to speak on the world’s biggest official diplomatic stage.
But, far from making remarks of any persuasive power that can be viewed to be helpful to defusing tension, he made unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors.
A frightened dog barks louder.
I’d like to advise Trump to exercise prudence in selecting words and to be considerate of whom he speaks to when making a speech in front of the world.
The mentally deranged behavior of the U.S. president openly expressing on the U.N. arena the unethical will to “totally destroy” a sovereign state, beyond the boundary of threats of regime change or overturn of social system, makes even those with normal thinking faculty think about discretion and composure.
His remarks remind me of such words as “political layman” and “political heretic” which were in vogue in reference to Trump during his presidential election campaign.
After taking office Trump has rendered the world restless through threats and blackmail against all countries in the world. He is unfit to hold the prerogative of supreme command of a country, and he is surely a rogue and a gangster fond of playing with fire, rather than a politician.
His remarks which described the U.S. option through straightforward expression of his will have convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct and that it is the one I have to follow to the last.
Now that Trump has denied the existence of and insulted me and my country in front of the eyes of the world and made the most ferocious declaration of a war in history that he would destroy the D.P.R.K. [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], we will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history.
Action is the best option in treating the dotard who, hard of hearing, is uttering only what he wants to say.
As a man representing the D.P.R.K. and on behalf of the dignity and honor of my state and people and on my own, I will make the man holding the prerogative of the supreme command in the U.S. pay dearly for his speech calling for totally destroying the D.P.R.K.
This is not a rhetorical expression loved by Trump.
I am now thinking hard about what response he could have expected when he allowed such eccentric words to trip off his tongue.
Whatever Trump might have expected, he will face results beyond his expectation.
I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U.S. dotard with fire.
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Opinion
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
You Version
Bible Translations, Devotional Tools and Plans, BLOG, free mobile application; notes and more
Political
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
NEWSMAX
News, Opinion, Interviews, Research and discussion
Spiritual
American Family Association
American Family Association (AFA), a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, was founded in 1977 by Donald E. Wildmon, who was the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Southaven, Mississippi, at the time. Since 1977, AFA has been on the frontlines of Ame
Bible Gateway
The Bible Gateway is a tool for reading and researching scripture online — all in the language or translation of your choice! It provides advanced searching capabilities, which allow readers to find and compare particular passages in scripture based on
Rocket Man vs. Mentally Deranged U.S. Dotard – 
arena in the prevailing serious circumstances, in which the situation on the Korean Peninsula has been rendered tense as never before and is inching closer to a touch-and-go state, is arousing worldwide concern.
What Did You Say? 
You must be logged in to post a comment.