Polls

Some have accused Erika Kirk of using forgiveness as a political tool, but anyone who actually listened to her statements knows her words came from faith, not hatred.

Forgiveness doesn’t erase grief or justice — it simply refuses to let bitterness take over the heart. Do you really think a woman mourning her husband would fake forgiveness just to ‘get back’ at anyone?


I personally think Erika Kirk’s decision to forgive her husband’s killer isn’t about politics or pretending — it’s about faith. In her own words, she said that forgiveness was the only way to keep hate from taking root in her heart, and that Charlie would have wanted her to lead with grace, not vengeance. Forgiveness doesn’t excuse what happened; it’s a declaration that evil doesn’t get the final word. She chose to honor her husband by living the values he believed in — courage, conviction, and mercy — even toward someone who didn’t deserve it. Condemning the faith of a grieving widow doesn’t prove moral strength — it reveals a heart hardened by anger. Forgiveness isn’t a political act; it’s an act of obedience and love. Erika’s response reminds us that faith can transform suffering into a testimony of grace.

At the end of the day, forgiveness reveals the condition of our hearts — whether we’re ruled by anger or guided by grace.

Do you approve or disapprove of the state department revoking visas over criticisms of Charlie Kirk?

State Department revokes visas over Kirk criticisms - www.politico.com/.../state-department-visas-revoked-charlie-kirk-criticism-00608817

Link to comments made by former visa holders in comment section posted by state department on X… - x.com/statedept/status/1978218112882266594?s=46

Vance/Rubio2028! 🇺🇸

My take: If you can get FOX & MSNBC to agree in solidarity, then you MUST be wrong Pete.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has imposed new restrictive conditions on media access to the Pentagon, requiring reporters to commit to not acquiring or using any unauthorized information, whether classified or unclassified. Journalists must sign an agreement to this effect or risk losing their press credentials and physical access to the Pentagon. This policy also restricts reporters' movements within the Pentagon, banning access to large areas without official escorts and relocating dedicated workspace for news organizations to undisclosed locations, making it harder for reporters to interact with military personnel. Hegseth's policy demands that any information reported must be preauthorized for release by Pentagon officials, effectively granting the Pentagon editorial control over what journalists can publish. This move has been widely criticized by the Pentagon Press Association and major news outlets—including ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times, and many others—who see it as a violation of First Amendment rights and an unprecedented attack on press freedom. Almost all media organizations have refused to sign the new rules, and many reporters have turned in their Pentagon press passes in protest.Hegseth defends the restrictions as common-sense measures to safeguard classified information and maintain order, but critics argue this escalates censorship and stifles transparency regarding military affairs. The policy also moves the Pentagon press corps toward an unprecedented absence of mainstream news coverage inside the Pentagon, breaking a tradition that had lasted since the Eisenhower era. Only one right-wing outlet, One America News, has agreed to the new conditions, while nearly all others stand in solidarity against them

LMFAO! This is what the AI said:

Major threats to the end of humanity along with their estimated likelihoods within the next century:

Unaligned Artificial Intelligence (AI): Approximate likelihood 1 in 10. This involves superintelligent AI systems whose goals may not align with human values, posing the highest anthropogenic extinction risk.

Engineered Global Pandemic: Approximate likelihood 1 in 30. This threat includes artificially created infectious diseases with high lethality and fast transmission.

Nuclear War: Lower but significant risk, possibly around 1 in 100 or more. While nuclear war could cause catastrophic destruction, total human extinction is debated.

Climate Change Failure: Moderate risk, roughly 1 in 10 to 1 in 20. While it could cause global calamity, it is less likely to lead to complete extinction.

Nanotechnology Risk: Lower and uncertain likelihood. Potential risks include misuse or accidents involving molecular nanotechnology.

Natural Catastrophes (asteroids, supervolcanoes, stellar explosions, coronal mass ejection, gamma rays,): Very low likelihood, roughly 1 in 1,000,000 per century combined. These events are rare but

Experts estimate the risk of human extinction this century may be around 1 in 6 (17%), with large uncertainties. Man-made risks are considered much more probable than natural.

The weird mix of the Philippines gives it less culture shock value also because of westernization and the lack of artistic fusion, it makes everything "familiar" and just direct imports losing it's culture shock value. Pre dominantly a Christian nation, the identifiable Spanish influences with obscured diversity suppressed and stereotyped by capital cities. That's why a lot feels unmixed and with Christianity and westernization being the dominant culture. But still, we get plenty of historically Chinese and now Korean migrants and investors, many Islamic groups from the south even moving to the north, Asian style street foods, wet markets, diverse outfits, Asian style sky scrapers, poverty, noodle dishes and rice everything with people generally looking like Austronesians also the dense city crowds, and loud motorcycles everywhere. That's why it gets plenty of mixed opinions every time. But either way, don't mind. They're all cool.

in regards to physical appearance

I have noticed some people equate being further educated with being smart. “I would never want the father of my kids to be uneducated.” College educated does NOT mean more intelligent. I have found that the only thing being college educated actually means is that you are more likely to align with the establishment.

Religion and greed cause a lot of conflicts. Would there be less conflict without religion?