Letters

The Test: Do I Really Believe What I Post?

So I posted something on Facebook the other day.

·         If God is really our provider, and that’s not just a religious saying, then why must we always worry about getting the very best price?

This is something Father and I have been talking about. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when he tests me on it.

I’ve been looking for a piece of equipment; my “to do list” has a hot link to a Craigslist search for the piece. And over the weekend some gave me some money, enough to buy the piece. And what do you know: there’s one for sale, exactly the sort that I’m looking for.  

On the way there, Father & I discussed this. I decided that “the best deal” was not the goal, but “the best honor” was a better choice. I had a price in my mind – not sure why it was there – that was well below his asking price.

So looking at the equipment, he offered to sell it for less; in fact, it was the exact amount I had in my mind (and in my pocket). Imagine that.  

But we tested it first. Oops. Not pretty. Needs new blades. He agreed and lowered his price again (I haven’t pushed him on price even once), this time to an odd number. I said no, and insisted on the next higher even number: all I had were $20 bills. He was happy with that.

I got home, tried to sharpen the blades on it: No go. Needs new blades.

Ordered blades from a little shop online. With shipping, that brings the total back up to the number that I had in my mind originally. And in my pocket.

What a funny process. But I think I learned some things here:

* I really CAN trust Father’s provision.
* Honor is more important than “the best” price.
* The path he takes me on may at times be circuitous. But it WILL be interesting.




Standard
Letters

The Test: Do I Really Believe What I Post?

So I posted something on Facebook the other day.

·         If God is really our provider, and that’s not just a religious saying, then why must we always worry about getting the very best price?

This is something Father and I have been talking about. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when he tests me on it.

I’ve been looking for a piece of equipment; my “to do list” has a hot link to a Craigslist search for the piece. And over the weekend some gave me some money, enough to buy the piece. And what do you know: there’s one for sale, exactly the sort that I’m looking for.  

On the way there, Father & I discussed this. I decided that “the best deal” was not the goal, but “the best honor” was a better choice. I had a price in my mind – not sure why it was there – that was well below his asking price.

So looking at the equipment, he offered to sell it for less; in fact, it was the exact amount I had in my mind (and in my pocket). Imagine that.  

But we tested it first. Oops. Not pretty. Needs new blades. He agreed and lowered his price again (I haven’t pushed him on price even once), this time to an odd number. I said no, and insisted on the next higher even number: all I had were $20 bills. He was happy with that.

I got home, tried to sharpen the blades on it: No go. Needs new blades.

Ordered blades from a little shop online. With shipping, that brings the total back up to the number that I had in my mind originally. And in my pocket.

What a funny process. But I think I learned some things here:

* I really CAN trust Father’s provision.
* Honor is more important than “the best” price.
* The path he takes me on may at times be circuitous. But it WILL be interesting.




Standard
Columns

Proven Opinions

Everyone wants an opinion, but not everyone understands. This goes for many topics, politics not the least.

What is the purpose of a political opinion?—To be angry at others? To blame others? To think you have all the answers so you can sleep at night? To make the world a better place? How is your goal going?

What evidence do you have that, if you had to put money on your political opinion being right, you wouldn’t lose everything you own?

When you are proven wrong, do you re-evaluate your opinion-making process? Without reevaluating, opinions won’t ever prove right.  · · · →

Standard
Symphony

Cadence of Conflict: Asia, July 31, 2017

Xi Jingping told his military the same thing China has been telling its people for decades: The world needs us, our military, our might, and our expansion, otherwise there can be no peace. This proves a static ethic. From this perspective, China wants the US to remain calm and not take action in North Korea.

Meanwhile, South Korea’s president wants the US to wait while he negotiates with the North for safety in the US. South Korean people want much the same thing Filipinos want: non-dependence. South Korea’s president, South Korea’s people, and China all want the US to “get out”. Interestingly, they share this sentiment with North Korea.

The world is full of political ideologies that claim half of one thing and do half of another. The best chance at victory is to simply stay home and do good work there. In that, the South Korean people stand the greatest chance of victory. Yet, the United States stands the greatest chance of taking action for two reasons: the US is being threatened more than any other and the US is willing to take action more than any other. If the US takes out the North, they can leave and the South Koreans will get what they want. But, things rarely happen as they should.

Only two things are foreseeable: conflict and Korean unification. All the rest is conjecture.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Encore of Revival: America, July 31, 2017

Revelations this week about the Russians’ involvement indited Putin more than anyone. This occurred along side more sanctions against Russia and Putin seriously diminishing Moscow-DC ties. If Putin wanted Trump, he isn’t acting like it. But, what Putin did want can only be conjecture for anything beyond expansion of Russia and chaos in the West to get it. That’s what they got.

This hopeless-from-the-beginning investigation into Russian collusion was mere grandstanding from a defeated political party—the Democrats. Their foreseen-fruitless pursuit has now resulted in revelations that have escalated the very conflict they campaign on preventing. But, since when have keeping campaign platform promises ever mattered in reelection for either main political party?

Bill Browder’s testimony to the Senate was blocked by Democrats. When he finally testified, many Democrats didn’t show up, nor their media entourage. The information he brings to the table is vast. So far, his testimony and understanding into Russia’s meddling in the US is the most extensive. Russia wasn’t just trying to get one politician elected, but to create chaos in America altogether, to lobby for certain laws, and to distract Americans with things that never actually happened. No one has cooperated with that effort as well as the media—wittingly or otherwise.

To date, reports include that the document James Comey had as evidence against Trump—the infamous Trump dossier—was a known fake. The FBI knew it was made by a former MI6 member and has zero evidence to back it. If the MI6 member could find evidence, the FBI was ready to pay $50k. The FBI did get a FISA warrant with the very dossier that they knew was so phony that they wouldn’t pay the $50k for. This was the same dossier Comey took to Trump as evidence against him. Trump knew Comey was using fake evidence.

Now, the question arises: Why did Comey and the media push so hard for an investigation into something completely made up with Russian money? If there was Russian meddling and US cooperation, the most likely suspects to investigate are leaders in the US media and Comey himself, though Comey would never get a fair trial.

Comey has helped these Russian efforts greatly, whether he intended to or not. If an FBI director’s help of Russian meddling turned out to be intentional, the US government would never let that be made known to the public. But, the swamp is being drained.

continue reading

Standard
Prophecy

Pillars are Changing

“Many of My children are and will be experiencing a change of PILLARS in their lives, individuals
that they have looked up to for personal strength and support. As your Mother has always been a pillar for you, many of My children have pillars as well.

This is a season of rapid change and for the replacing pillars. These pillars have done their work well and it is now time for them to move on, some to come home to Me, others to new endeavors.

However, in order to raise the ceiling for those who I have called to new heights – I must replace the pillars.

Many may not see or appreciate what is happening at this moment in time, but soon they will see and know that I have set in motion a plan for the next season of their lives that will see them rocket to new heights.

So do not despair at the loss of your pillars, yes for some there will be a grieving process, but as My process says I will never leave you nor forsake you, so trust me as things are changing and be prepared for the new heights that I am leading you into.”

~Martin  Best, July 2017
Shelton, Washington


Standard
Prophecy

Pillars are Changing

“Many of My children are and will be experiencing a change of PILLARS in their lives, individuals
that they have looked up to for personal strength and support. As your Mother has always been a pillar for you, many of My children have pillars as well.

This is a season of rapid change and for the replacing pillars. These pillars have done their work well and it is now time for them to move on, some to come home to Me, others to new endeavors.

However, in order to raise the ceiling for those who I have called to new heights – I must replace the pillars.

Many may not see or appreciate what is happening at this moment in time, but soon they will see and know that I have set in motion a plan for the next season of their lives that will see them rocket to new heights.

So do not despair at the loss of your pillars, yes for some there will be a grieving process, but as My process says I will never leave you nor forsake you, so trust me as things are changing and be prepared for the new heights that I am leading you into.”

~Martin  Best, July 2017
Shelton, Washington


Standard
Symphony

Cadence of Conflict: Asia, July 24, 2017

Conflict in China has become a tech problem. In the Koreas, it’s become an ideological time bomb.

They are all connected—technology, economy, communication, and ideology. These become a vicious cycle with no happy ending, at least none in sight.

Tech giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook take turns bossing around governments in the West. China wants nothing to do with that. Who can blame them? They simply ban them—along with the ability to do tech research with them.

Governments require sovereignty. Sovereignty requires resources. Resources require economics. Economics require research. Research requires communication. Communication requires, well, communication. Innovation is a state of mind that affects all of a person’s ideas, both in terms of technology and political values. If Chinese researchers want to improve their own technology, they will have to read papers written by pro-democracy experts from the West.

China’s ban on communication isn’t just about controlling political ideas among the masses; it’s about not letting Google boss around a country with 1.3 Billion people like it does with Europe. Sure, the challenges in China accompany the normal list of symptoms associated with any Communist State.

North Korea is a well-documents flash back to the 1950s.  A returned defector hungers for the handouts she had in poverty rather than needing to and being able to work for her own living. The same happened when the iron curtain fell in Russia. Slaves love their chains.

Communist governments supply all their people’s needs, including food. Necessity is the mother of invention. People who grow up without need grow up without invention. That affects the economy. If government gives people food then they won’t have new ideas to fuel the economy.

Vietnam, though more and more free, doesn’t even think of an email address as a normal item on a business card. Communist countries close their doors and don’t progress. People learn to lie to survive. Soon, laws get ignored, including safety laws. Industrial accidents rise. People stop sharing information about anything, especially themselves. Governments don’t know which laws to make for the people because they don’t know what real people do because the people are punished for saying what they do.

The other option—Google takes over. Where is anyone to go?

Linkedin has a potential way forward while other social companies have failed. But, therein lies an inherant problem. Consider the word roots—”social” media is an affront to “Socialism” by etymological definition. Of course Communist China would never let Facebook in—never. The day Facebook enters China the Communist party falls. Apple is trying to enter the market that makes their phones, but Apple faces bigger problems than the closed doors of Communism; Apple is being defeated by both the Western economy and Linux.

Only Linkedin remains with a way forward because their service passes personal information publicly, through “profiles”. Making personal information public is not the kind of crackdown Communists tend to make. But, the problem there is social: People learn to conceal their true selves in a Communist State. Moreover, in a dynastic culture with thousands of years of “emperors”, publicly stating who your friends are indicates guilt. Who does that, anyway? In the milieu of laws shooting in the dark at problems they don’t understand, everyone is a criminal of some blue law, so declaring your friends is self-inditing through guilt by association. Making truth about oneself available to the public is near suicide in any closed country.

Linkedin’s path forward requires social change. They could do it. China shouldn’t object to running ads encouraging people to divulge information about themselves. But, the people will quickly start to feel entitled to free speech in order to do that. And, they will expect to not be indited for saying that they had noodles at a shop frequented by a mafia boss. Culture clash is coming if Linkedin even tries, but that never stopped the parent company Microsoft before.

Still, it will take time, probably too long for short-attention-spanned shareholders. Linkedin is too big to be patient long enough for any progress, but they might pave a way to a new business model for someone to come after them. While ideologies and technologies come and go, people as a whole always push forward and overcome.

The West should thank China for being closed. They seem to be the only ones really sticking it to Google and Facebook. Apple also owes China a big thank you: when your irreplaceable mastermind dies, “blaming it on the Communists” always works in a quarterly review. While the Communist debate always remains, the Fascist debate can always rebound. Thanks to Communism holding big-money Fascism at bay, the need for new technology has been granted on a silver platter. Thanks to China’s unintended consequences, something new is on the way and it’s bigger than all of us.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Encore of Revival: America, July 24, 2017

Obama’s legacy will not be destroyed by repealing his health care plan.

Of course, it must be repealed and/or replaced since he himself would not allow it to be enforced.

Repeal and Replace voters shout, “Give us something that works!” while Obama supporters shout, “Don’t you care about children?” It’s that whole “talking about two different things, pretending we’re talking about the same thing”, deal. One side argues the label while the other side disputes the label’s accuracy; everyone wants good health care.

…And, that’s what Obama gave us.

Before “Obamacare”, Americans would not agree on whether the nation needed to nationalize health care. Democratic voters hailed the system as broken—which it was. Republican voters hailed their old song—everything government gives it first takes, then never does as good of a job.

But, with Obamacare being passed—even though it was so terrible that Obama himself suspended its enforcement—the nation finally agreed on one thing: We need to nationalize health care.

So, Democratic and Republican voters agree and they don’t even know it. Republican and Democratic politicians agree and the people never noticed. Shouldn’t that make Democratic voters panic?—that Republican politicians are advocating for Democrats. Why don’t Republican voters remember their own concerns two decades ago, during the “Hillarycare” debates, that “Hitler first nationalized health care.”

The nation’s health care system is broken. Frivolous lawsuits are among the largest culprits—and most ignored. Everything needs some form of regulation, which was an argument in the Declaration of Independence in the first place—”laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

But, there remains the argument from history. Taiwan nationalized health care over a decade ago. It was well researched, but now is in trouble. Nazi Germany did happen to do the same thing.

For some reason, historically, nationalizing health care seals the doom of a nation. Maybe it’s “bread and circuses” in disguise. This is a warning to the United States: Obama succeeded, the nation will finally accept nationalized health care.

Democrats and Republicans will work together, while the voters still think they are fighting. No one advocating “Trumpcare” explains why this will be the first nationalized health care program in history not to destroy a nation.

As good as fixing a broken system is, something is not right about the health care debate. Great and wonderful as it is, nationalized health care could also be the herald prophesying the end of the United States if for no other reason than that we needed it.

How will the nation solve health care? Republicans in Washington don’t know what to do, yet. Google and Amazon argue for first chance to tell governments that they are irrelevant. Governments don’t know what to do, yet. Foreign monkeys attack in Florida where officials don’t know what to do, yet. A man in Alabama shoots an 820lb foreign wild boar in his front yard and officials think he did the right thing.

Well, at least with wild pigs in the front yard, Alabama knows what to do.

continue reading

Standard
Columns

Problems too Big

Christians’ reputation precedes them. They do a terrible job at nearly everything, argue with each other all the time, and look down on the rest of the people who keep the world spinning. Why?

It’s small thinking.

They believe that, in one way or another, meeting Sunday Morning is “more valid”. It’s not that Christians think that Christians are better than others; it’s that they think Sunday Morning is better than others.

But, if God made everything, isn’t every day equally valid? Isn’t all “fellowship” equally “real”? If Jesus is so big, Sunday Morning too small for him to fit.  · · · →

Standard
Letters

Blue Collar Jesus

My day job is what’s normally called a “white collar” job. Most American jobs are.

Recently, I was doing a lot of digging. Digging is more of a “blue collar” job.

And while I was digging, I was listening to the Bible, ‘cuz that’s what I do. I was listening to the Gospel of Matthew.

And because I was in the midst of so much manual labor at the time, I saw the parables of Jesus through more of a blue collar lens.

It surprised me, seeing them like that. For the first time I realized – really realized – that Jesus told blue-collar stories. I observe that while he hung out with white collar guys (like tax collectors and perhaps Lazarus, and the rich guys who sought him out for healing), he never told white-collar stories. He told blue-collar stories.

Yes, a larger portion of first century jobs were blue collar jobs. But this is more than that. Jesus is going out of his way to reach the scruffy folks, the one that didn’t matter as much as the good folks, the people with position and influence.

I think in these terms: if Jesus started his church-planting work among the calloused-handed working class, I wonder why our church-planting efforts do things differently. Do we judge His work as insufficient, or unworthy?

I observe that Jesus handled money so very differently than modern churches do. He had a few (presumably wealthy) patrons, and supplemented that with miracles (coins in a fish’s mouth, multiplying meals; I wonder how often he did that?). By contrast, we generally work to attract upper-middle-class folks and then preach tithing to them: guilt or obligation as the means of paying the rent.

Rent. Jesus never did seem to have a place that he needed to pay rent on. That’ll help keep the expenses in line. No building to support (though he did preach in synagogues when invited). And he didn’t draw a salary from the ministry.

I am reaching the conclusion that this blue-collar thing, this is who Jesus really was. When he humbled himself (Philippians 2), He went all the way. Jesus loves to reach the folks in the gutters because that’s who He was when He was on Earth. That’s where He lived.



Standard
Letters

Blue Collar Jesus

My day job is what’s normally called a “white collar” job. Most American jobs are.

Recently, I was doing a lot of digging. Digging is more of a “blue collar” job.

And while I was digging, I was listening to the Bible, ‘cuz that’s what I do. I was listening to the Gospel of Matthew.

And because I was in the midst of so much manual labor at the time, I saw the parables of Jesus through more of a blue collar lens.

It surprised me, seeing them like that. For the first time I realized – really realized – that Jesus told blue-collar stories. I observe that while he hung out with white collar guys (like tax collectors and perhaps Lazarus, and the rich guys who sought him out for healing), he never told white-collar stories. He told blue-collar stories.

Yes, a larger portion of first century jobs were blue collar jobs. But this is more than that. Jesus is going out of his way to reach the scruffy folks, the one that didn’t matter as much as the good folks, the people with position and influence.

I think in these terms: if Jesus started his church-planting work among the calloused-handed working class, I wonder why our church-planting efforts do things differently. Do we judge His work as insufficient, or unworthy?

I observe that Jesus handled money so very differently than modern churches do. He had a few (presumably wealthy) patrons, and supplemented that with miracles (coins in a fish’s mouth, multiplying meals; I wonder how often he did that?). By contrast, we generally work to attract upper-middle-class folks and then preach tithing to them: guilt or obligation as the means of paying the rent.

Rent. Jesus never did seem to have a place that he needed to pay rent on. That’ll help keep the expenses in line. No building to support (though he did preach in synagogues when invited). And he didn’t draw a salary from the ministry.

I am reaching the conclusion that this blue-collar thing, this is who Jesus really was. When he humbled himself (Philippians 2), He went all the way. Jesus loves to reach the folks in the gutters because that’s who He was when He was on Earth. That’s where He lived.



Standard
Symphony

Cadence of Conflict: Asia, July 17, 2017

South Korea proposed to talk to North Korea this week. Much of the timing relates to anniversaries and upcoming holidays. Pyongyang is still angry about twelve waitresses who moved South and wants them back first. Seoul says the waitresses moved to the South of their own will. The US’ answer is a siege, including efforts to persuade Myanmar to curb their support for the North through arms purchases, as well as planned sanctions against Chinese banks that deal with the North.

Sanctions are a known form of pressure, but an invitation to talk is also a form of pressure because a rejection is bad press and raises public support for action from opposing countries. Pressure is mounting and North Korea will either deescalate quickly or else one wrong move will be the only excuse the US needs to yank the lynch pin.

China faces it’s own pressure, military, optics, and time, which is running out. Taiwan’s Navy is increasing cooperation with the US in a move included in the US military budget for 2018. Southern Taiwan is also beefing-up its naval base to handle both more traffic and more capacity. The upgrade should finish around 2025.

As for optics, Human Rights activists are managing to rally loads of bad international press against China. One activist died of a liver disease he acquired while serving an eleven-year term in China. Another was released after finishing a four-year prison sentence in China. A bookstore from Hong Kong’s Causeway Bay that was shut down will reopen in Taipei. The bookstore closed after its owners were arrested relating to activism about Human Rights and China.

While most international press paints China as the culprit, the more important matter is the surprise this is for the Chinese. In the West, bad press is countered with photo ops. In China, bad press is countered with imprisonment. A bookstore in Hong Kong was a way to spread ideas to Chinese nationals visiting Hong Kong from the mainland. China views itself as trying to help the people; criticism can’t be “constructive” by definition and must therefore be silenced. But, that method only works in one’s own territory.

Protests in Hong Kong gain attention from international press China does not control. By shutting down a bookstore in Hong Kong, that bookstore moved to a location farther from Beijing’s reach and where it can gain more international press, sacrificing its ability to spread propaganda into China. This is backfiring against China internationally, but not at home. Most international news analysis won’t include that China doesn’t expect it to happen that way. The Chinese genuinely believe that Xi Jinping’s “protestless” visit to Hong Kong is good press and the only press that matters.

continue reading

Standard
Symphony

Encore of Revival: America, July 17, 2017

Donald Trump, Jr. was asked by the Russians to look at information that could indite the Clintons. He agreed, contacted some peers, met and listened, then decided it was a dead end. The New York Times made the first disclosure about this information, but not their source of the information.

There is no crime here so far, at least not among Trump parties. Listening once is always good. Yet, opposition claims that Trump received “contributions” AKA “money”, that Trump initiated in reaching out to the Russians, that Trump covered-up this meeting, and that “listening once” surmounts to “collusion”.

Many people in America do seem to think that hearing someone out is “collusion”, which is part of why so few Americans listen to each other.

Many political candidates do receive money illegally, questions come up in surplus regarding the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign contributions.

Many politicians have tried to cover up their meetings, memos, and communiqués in the past, even deleting them when those communiqués and memos are under a subpoena.

It’s all normal behavior—for some people’s value system, but not everyone’s.

Many questions arise about how the New York Times obtained information that hadn’t been released concerning a family under FBI surveillance. Perhaps, since the FBI was watching, they might know who told the New York Times, but maybe not if they can’t get their iPhones to work.

More questions come up about the Russian lawyer and why she was allowed in by the DOJ during Obama years after she was flatly turned-down for a visa. Involvement in the bickering between Obama and Putin come up, her lobbying for Russian objectives in Congress. It smells of Obama-style “organizing”—creating chaos that interrupts his goals while he asks for more power to achieve those goals he interrupts, which failed in the end for Obamacare—or did it? Regardless, at the end of the Russianewsgategate scandal remains the question of ties to Russia, but not Trump’s as much as Obama’s.

According to legal opinions, the specific accusations against Trump about the meeting with Russians so far look false. The concerned activities are not illegal. And, both the concerned activities and the thus-far-false accusations have happened with other political figures who were not pursued as Trump is.

Why is there such imbalance of attention?

While the very suffix “-gate” and many other statements have compared this scandal to Nixon’s Watergate cover-up, one fundamental difference remains: Nixon’s wrongdoing happened under his great power as sitting president as he sought dirt to fight political opponents during an election. Though this happened during an election, and it concerned attempts to uncover dirt between political opponents, Trump wasn’t the sitting president with the greater power, someone else was and that someone else’s use of that greater power is also being called into question. Another difference from Nixon’s Watergate is that it is too late for that someone else to resign and thereby receive a full pardon from his successor.

Perhaps that is why such unbalanced attention focuses on Trump instead of the more fitting Nixonian counterpart. But, we don’t know why this is happening. Wagons are circling. And, whenever the wagons circle, it’s not a good sign of the times.

There is no point in pursuing a dead end. The Trump dissent from the far Left, therefore, does not think it’s a dead end. They seem to hold that some sort of information exchanged happened between Trump and the Russians that was not disclosed. That’s the most sense to make of it all. But, that further illustrates how the Right and Left of America think differently. The Left doesn’t understand the Right’s value system: Listen to everyone once, be fair to enemies, don’t do anything dishonest in the process. In the mind of the far Left, dishonesty and power go together by definition and listening before having an opinion isn’t even a consideration. The far Right doesn’t understand how the far Left doesn’t understand that. Each side of America looks down and shakes its head over the actions the other.

There may be no conspiracy against Trump. This may be happening because a few powerful people in mass media and politics normally drop a few words, hit at a few ideas, and a candidate fails as if on cue. Those methods failed on Trump and those powerful few don’t know how to handle their first-time failure. Young Democratic voters latch on to these fruitless efforts because they also don’t know how to deal with their first-time election defeat.

This situation is dangerous for the nation, not because Trump has done anything wrong, but because shining the spotlight on fruitless pursuits is distracting the nation from the long-lasting laws Trump already has progress with.

Obama had the House and Senate, but lost them. His signature health care law was as such that he himself suspended enforcing it, the opposing party won six elections on a campaign to “repeal and replace”, and that “repeal and replace” is under way. He issued many executive orders which were thrown to the wind the day he left office. And, most importantly, he failed on the primary pro-government argument of the American Left: building roads and bridges. Obama didn’t build and maintain the roads and bridges; Trump is building and maintaining them instead. In fact, Trump is doing everything Obama didn’t.

But, the nation isn’t watching what Trump does. Trump has zero accountability from the press or the public on his work as president. Instead, all of Trump’s opposition are chasing imaginary ghosts in the closet, monsters under the bed, and using convincing fake rhetoric to talk about it. God forbid Trump, as president, actually do anything that’s genuinely wrong—no one would notice.

Democratic Senators Feinstein, Franken, and others plan to vote for Trump’s nominee for FBI Director. Their reasons included that he will follow the Constitution, not serve the will of the President, and follow due process. Feinstein did not mention when she changed her position since the last time she voted on nominees. But, that change is finally coming.

continue reading

Standard