ozso said:

Both NAGA and the Native Times are run by a whole bunch of American Indians.

Click to expand...

See above, He's a fake. Funded by a PR firm for the owners.
"Redskin" as you have conceded. is a racist slur; "indian" is merely a misnomer.
Again, why is it so hard for you to just call people what they want to be called? "Redskin" is a racial slur. No way to get around it.
Indian booster for Washington Redskins is not an Indian

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/10/report-indian-booster-for-washington-redskins-is-not-an-indian/

Oompa Loompa said:

And? New York doesnt have statute of limitations?

Click to expand...

Subject to the King of NY and in all irony an executive order extending the date. Live by the EO, get convicted by EO.

Yes his promises are true, if you have faith everything is possible it says,
one of those is 'God is not going to test you more than you can handle' if you are alright with God walking with Him, he will sustain you,
i have seen again and again, how things seemed horrible, and maybe out of control, and when i couldn't hold any longer, here comes God with some help or relief. We just need to not give up, and keep praying and fighting and resisting when things are going bad.

Say it aint so said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this is the same wild goose chase that Bill Barr had special prosecutor John Durham investigate for six years and came up with three things; Noting, zilch, nada. Moreover, along with Durham the Inspector General in his report came up with the same goose egg.

Click to expand...

Two words

New evidence.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this the same wild goose chase that Bill Barr had special prosecutor John Durham investigate for six years and came up with three things; Noting, zilch, nada. Moreover, along with Durham the Inspector General in his report came up with the same goose egg.

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

I am seeking clarification. If the intention was to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, why were these documents released after the election?

Click to expand...

Because they were concealed.

Say it aint so said:

New York.

Click to expand...

And? New York doesnt have statute of limitations?

Oompa Loompa said:

Statute of limitations didn't stop Trump being convicted.

Click to expand...

New York.

Always in His Presence said:

From Grok:

The primary source for these documents is the ODNI’s official website, www.dni.gov, where they were reportedly made available. Specifically, a press release from July 19, 2025, on the ODNI site details the release, stating that Gabbard provided the documents to the Department of Justice for criminal referral. Additionally, posts on X mention the release, with one user (@808constituent) referencing a link to the documents, though the specific URL (https://t.co/hZlJEo7rSL) is a shortened X link that cannot be directly accessed without further resolution.

Click to expand...

Isn't that the Nazi spewing AI site?

linux.poet said:

I used the term “practicality”, but I could have just as easily have used the word “pragmatic” to describe my family environment growing up. Most marriages are based in pragma in addition to Eros, ludus, and storge.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I would like to hear more about why you thought your family and Christian upbringing in general (assuming) was empathy-less? Just seems so foreign to me, especially under a Christian environment.

Despite growing up in a socially Christian conservative upbringing, empathy was valued and encouraged and wasn't seen as unmasculine. Really.. it depends how one can expresses empathy. I don't think I ever saw my father cry, nor appear fragile.

Probably as a result, I have never had issues expressing my feelings. Despite what some feminists and men in toxic masculine environments say. It's never really hindered me, and most women actually find it a turn on. Which makes sense.. even among traditional feminine women. Someone who desires a man who can lead and take charge will want a man who can reflect on his own emotions and the emotions of others. Empathy in men isn't a turn off if it's expressed in a certain way.

Many women love poets and musicians, professions that often require a high degree of empathy.

linux.poet said:

Most marriages begin with ludus and Eros and end in bedpans, medical appointments, and paperwork. That statement is pragma. Many recent church teachings about marriage have emphasized pragma and philia at the expense of Eros and ludus.

Yes. We used to read Our Daily Bread every night, attend church every Sunday, and we went to Awana on Wednesday. My mom had us practice our Awana verses at home.

I was raised non-denominational as well, though it was in a “Bible Church” setting that emphasized intellectual prowess (scripture memorization, understanding, and application) rather than any sort of empathy or martyrdom glorification.

Click to expand...

Ah, ok. Been looking up the history of non-denominational churches. They tend to be more independent and can vary wildly. I know in the church I went to we had a regular member who was even a Catholic.

I wouldn't say my Church was unusually fixated on glorifying martyrdom. It was just a thing that was there, and pretty standard for a lot of Christian cultures. There wasn't anything particularly extreme about my Christian upbringing.

linux.poet said:

What you are describing sounds more like “charismatic” non-denominational, more in line with Pentecostalism than the more Dallas Theological Seminary-style preaching environment I’ve known. Formalities have varied, I’ve attended three churches with pews and about as many with chairs, but all have plain crosses at the front, no crucifixes, if there was anything on the walls at all.

Click to expand...

That sounds fair. Theology was still important, but spirituality probably more so. We had plain crosses too. There wasn't a lot of religious art in my household. The few we did have were uplifting and non-violent.

I do know the Catholic Church has taken some steps to tone down the bloody aesthetics. The psychological harm of such images have been warned about since the late 19th and early 20th century. Even centuries earlier in a less scientific context. I cannot imagine the Christian world hasn't silently taken heed in response.

linux.poet said:

The ready explanation I was given was that love has to be a choice - in order for us to truly love, we had to be free to not love, and also suffer the consequences of not-loving. What not-love does to us is horrifying and damaging, but it had to exist to allow us to voluntarily commit to the true good of God, and ourselves.



Or as another put it “God wants sons and daughters, not robots.”

Again, this was given to me as a child, I wasn’t left to grapple with the question. God wanted us to be able to love him, and that is why he let us fall and went to the pain of redeeming us. Love is an expensive virtue that comes at a heavy cost.

Click to expand...

I was told similar explanations as a child. I cannot say I ever really found them convincing. God could have given us free will without the extreme suffering. Also, heaven sounds like we would revert back to being robots. Or the billions of babies who were aborted or died early who never got to be tested.

linux.poet said:

In view of that, martyrdom glorification is garbage. The reason the church esteems martyrs is because they proclaimed the Gospel and continued to proclaim the Gospel in the face of corrupt governments that killed them. The reason they are esteemed is because of their stand for the faith, not because of their death. The fact that they did not waver from their testimony of the Truth is authenticated by their death, but you don’t need to suffer a death at the hands of a corrupt government to know that Your faith in the Gospel is real. That idea is absurd. Was Billy Graham martyred? No? Does anyone question his Christianity? Does the church not rightly esteem him for his stand for the faith and his willingness to proclaim the Gospel?

Click to expand...

I wasn't taught that the only way Christians could be esteemed was through martyrdom.

I didn't get the impression that martyrdom was just about standing up for the faith, but also as an act of love. To suffer extreme pain and death for God. To imitate Christ on the cross. An emotional process one can experience to learn love on a "deeper" level.

Like I said earlier in this thread. Being tortured and killed for another can be loving and deeply moving. The key thing.. in the proper context.

I hear some Christians say that they see all love through the lens of the cross. What does this actually mean on a psychological level? Could this lead to demented ideas about love? Are some people just hooked on these powerful feelings?

linux.poet said:

What about my uncle who preached the Gospel at rescue missions and at churches and was faithful to Christ and the Gospel until the end? He died of pancreatic cancer. Does the method of his death make him less of a Christian? I think not.

I agree with this.

However, an important caveat: some abusers are world champion criticizers. In order for criticism to root out abuse, it has to be a two-way street. The criticism must flow freely from victim back to the abuser for that to work. If the abuser is criticizing the victim, that’s not a sign of growth in the relationship.

Uncritical environments allow abuse to thrive; but a critical environment does not prevent abuse either. Criticism becomes insults which turn into threats and punishments, and then we’re back at abuse. True criticism allows the recipient to solve the problem and repair the relationship to the critic; abusive criticism is assigning impossible tasks to people for the purpose of insulting and punishing them for not doing what they cannot do.

Click to expand...

Of course, criticism should be a two way street. I also agree that criticism can become abusive too. No style of love is going to be perfect. I am just trying to find tenets of love that point in the right direction. An environment that respects free speech is one such tenet. Sadly one many conservatives and liberals do not value. Even among some so called atheist "skeptics".

I can understand the empathetic urge to want to ban certain speech. Obviously I have less of an issue with banning speech such as name calling and insults that add no substance to an argument. I am mostly worried about banning ideas. Even under the best of circumstances, closing off speech may just lead to inbred thinking.

This post is getting a little long. I will respond to the rest of your post later. I hope my late response times are not too bothersome. This is just a hard topic for me. Although admittedly my mood has been on the upswing since making this thread. Nice to get some of these concerns off my chest.

Sorry that you feel empty but I am glad that you are seeking help. The foremost goal I think should be to restore your spiritual state and mind to a position that is at peace with God. Peace as in knowing that he is on your side and that there are as few impediments as possible that can stand in the way of your fellowship with God. I assume from your post that you do know Jesus and have at least some Christian teaching. Still, it seems like your status is impeded by some of the things you have experienced. I pray you can get the breakthrough that you need to have a vibrant and fulfilling life in Christ.
Specifically some things to look at include forgiving people that have hurt you in the past. If this is an issue, you can pray that you forgive even confess out loud that you forgive and even if you do not feel it in your heart, it is a step that will help bring forgiveness nearer. We are to love our enemies as an example. This might be from a distance so we are not hurt anymore, but love in the sense that we pray and wish that they too reconcile things with God. We also leave it up to God to do any judging. We can trust him for that.

Another issue that often occurs to break off our fellowship is an inner desire to earn the love and acceptance from God. The fact is while it is nice to do good things, salvation is a gift given to us. So don't let the devil accuse you of failing God. As you call on Him, he does forgive you and desires to bring you out to better pastures so you are not alone and in a place of hurt. So know that you have his acceptance and forgiveness as you have asked. That there is no need to feel condemned or unworthy before Him. This is because your grade to Father God is based on what Jesus did, not what you can ever do. So your grade in Jesus is 100%, a real source of relief because every other human has failed.

Hopefully others can offer their advice, but your daily bread (the word of God) and your walk with Him each day is important. Help with this includes good daily habits like reading your bible. Being aware of his presence, going to church, prayer including listening and fellowship with other Christians is also going to make a difference. Knowing too that you have things inside of you to give to others is important as well. Perhaps not right now but James says to pray for others that you may be healed. So you don't need to be perfect to have a part in the body of Christ, you just need to be willing as God shows you or your heart compels you in love. Already your desire to help your family shows this type of giving so that is great, you are on the right track.

That's about the basics that I can think of at the moment. Just don't forget and pray (Often even) that you know the depth of God's love as Paul does in Ephesians 3:14-19. With certainty I can say that God does love you and cares for you. May your journey go well in unpacking the things of God and in some cases distributing them to others. God bless!

PloverWing said:

If you're standing at the entrance to a Pride festival, you'll be perceived as protesting the festival and the people who attend it. That's how the local Gazette described your group: "During the event, several protestors gathered on the square corners, holding signs that often included Bible verses." In this context, you're not an evangelist; you're a protestor. The message that festival attendees will hear is that the festival shouldn't exist and the attendees shouldn't be here.

Click to expand...

Sadly, you are right. Though on the rarest of occasion, when watching videos like this, a person who supports the pride event may have a new revelation and come to the foot of the cross. But this is very rare.

PloverWing said:

But if your goal is evangelism, then I think you'd do better in more neutral settings. I'm glad to read in your other thread, for example, that you've had a table at your local farmers' market. Much better; clearly, no one thinks you're protesting the existence of farmers. If people don't think you're opposed to their very existence, they'll probably be more open to hearing what you have to say about God.

Click to expand...

A farmers' market would be better. But sometimes it is a good idea to quietly confront the wrong that people do. If these people are never confronted, then they will never see their error and their sin will simply grow and pull more people into it.
We just have to be careful how we go about it. We need to make sure that we are going with wisdom, love and truth, and gentleness and respect.

David Hunter said:

Whelp, third and final time for the guy at the Medina Pride Event coming back just going at it. Even mooned us at the end. I really need to learn and practice how to handle people like this better.

Click to expand...

I did like, at the start, how you tried to get him to say that most wars are started by religion. Once he has said that, you can then counter him. Here is how:
"It's a common claim that religion causes most wars, but history just doesn't support that. Most major conflicts have been driven by power, politics, greed, territory, or ideology, not religion. For example, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War and the Ukraine War all have not been started by religion.
When you look at the stats, only 7% of wars in recorded history are primarily about religion. And among those, the majority were instigated by Islamic conquests and jihads, especially during the spread of early Islam and the Ottoman period.
Yes, Christians have been involved in conflicts like the Crusades, but Christianity as a whole does not promote war. In fact, the teachings of Jesus call for peace, forgiveness, and loving one's enemies.
So, while religion has been used at times to justify conflict, the root causes of most wars (93%) lie elsewhere: human pride, power struggles, and political ambition." Stats from "Encyclopedia of Wars"

He also claimed that nobody knows what happens once we all die. A simple response is:
"You can only be certain of what you know. You cannot claim to know what every person on the planet knows. And I personally know without a doubt that once we die, we will have to give an account for our lives."

He also tried to claim that there is no evidence that Jesus existed. A response:
"Virtually all scholars of antiquity believe that Jesus was a real person. Jesus isn’t just a figure from the Bible. Even non‑Christian historians recorded His existence not long after His death. Tacitus, writing around 116 AD, confirms that Christ, who was executed under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius, was the founder of the Christian movement. Likewise, Josephus, a Jewish historian around 93 AD, refers to “James, the brother of Jesus,” thereby attesting to Jesus’ life and the impact He had on those around Him."

He was trying to imply that Jesus never died on the cross.
"If Jesus’ death and resurrection were just a lie, then explain this: When in history have so many people willingly suffered and died brutal deaths for something they knew was false?
The disciples had everything to lose, yet they went to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus is Lord and that He rose from the dead. Paul, a former persecutor of Christians, was radically transformed. Peter was crucified. James, Jesus’ own half-brother, who once doubted Him, later died believing Jesus was the risen Messiah.
And consider this: if the resurrection story were faked, no one in the ancient world would have used women as the first witnesses, since their testimony wasn’t considered reliable at the time. Yet the Gospels boldly report that women were the first to see the risen Christ. This is a powerful sign of authenticity, not fabrication.
People don’t willingly die for something they know is a lie. The best explanation is the simplest: Jesus really did rise from the dead."

He also tried to claim that you cannot use the bible to prove the Bible's authenticity. Here is a response:
"The Bible isn’t just one book; it’s a collection of 66 books written by different authors over centuries. Just like historians compare multiple sources to confirm events, we can compare the different parts of the Bible. The Gospels, Acts, and letters all support and confirm each other. That’s not circular; that’s a collection of multiple eyewitnesses telling the same story, and then putting those historical accounts into one book."

Clare73 said:

...or to form organizations for those interested in doing so.

Click to expand...

That's actually a good idea. The US could put aside a tiny fraction of the money it has available to help those in countries that need help. The money could be allocated by congress, it would keep the bad guys out of the picture, encourage others to help, have long term benefits for the US, save countless lives and...well, it's the morally correct thing to do and fulfills Christ's teachings. You could call it AidUS or something.

I mean, what would the mentality of the people be who could possibly argue against that? Especially on a Christian forum.

Hans Blaster said:

Nothing I didn't already know. All consistent with:

1. No Russian hacking of election infrastructure.
2. Russian state dump/leak operations against DNC/Clinton campaign
3. Russian social media operations relating to election. (Including a lot of pot stirring on sensitive topics from both sides.)

There are no crimes here and the statute of limitations for these non-crimes has expired.

Click to expand...

Statute of limitations didn't stop Trump being convicted.

ralliann said:

I would bet these Hispanics were American citizens. They know why they came here.

Click to expand...

Yes, I also think that the Hispanics who voted were American citizens

Vambram said:

I think that perhaps the only reason that you believe those pages of documents are dishonest is because of the accusations towards the Obama administration.

Click to expand...

Oh, you think that’s the reason, huh?

Did you actually bother to click the link and read what I wrote or did you jump to that conclusion automatically?

Did you even bother to read Gabbard’s docs or did you leave that to me and the other libs?

iluvatar5150 said:

He's being referred to the DOJ because Gabbard apparently can't tell the difference between hacking a vote count and other forms of influencing an election.

For reference, here's Gabbard memo on the subject:

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/DIG/DIG-Russia-Hoax-Memo-and-Timeline_revisited.pdf

The vast majority of her claims about things that didn't happen have to do with hacking of voting machines, which, as we can all remember and, as that memo makes clear on page 8, was only one of the potential attack vectors they intended to investigate, yet throughout the document, she conflates hacking of voting machines with other means of influence. It's a pretty crude bait and switch that isn't even hard to spot.

She also apparently has some trouble reading a calendar and reading passages of text in context. Here's a section from page 9:

• December 16, 2016 — Though President Obama admits there is no “evidence of machines being tampered with” during the election, he says he was concerned that potential hacks “could hamper vote counting and affect the actual election process.”​

“What I was concerned about in particular was making sure that [Wikileaks/Clinton emails] wasn’t compounded by potential hacking that could hamper vote counting and affect the actual election process itself. And so in early September, when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that, that didn’t happen was to talk to him directly. And tell him to cut it out.” – President Obama on hacking the vote.​

Reality: Multiple IC assessments before and after the election consistently showed no credible reporting of Russian intent or capability to do what President Obama alleges.​

That sure does sound damning... if you skip over the dates and you don't bother to look up what he said immediately following that passage.

First, the dates. Yes, this quote from Obama was made on Dec 16, but he's clearly retelling an event that happened in September - specifically Sep 4-5, which in the chronology of the Gabbard memo, would put it earlier than all but one of the events she listed. So, contrary to her implications, when he had concern that Putin would hack the elections, the IC had mostly not already determined that Russia couldn't/wouldn't/didn't do that.

Second, the context. Here's the full transcript of that press conference.

And here's the relevant passage, emphasis added:

​

Now, with respect to how this thing unfolded last year, let’s just go through the facts pretty quickly. At the beginning of the summer, we’re alerted to the possibility that the DNC has been hacked, and I immediately order law enforcement as well as our intelligence teams to find out everything about it, investigate it thoroughly, to brief the potential victims of this hacking, to brief on a bipartisan basis the leaders of both the House and the Senate and the relevant intelligence committees. And once we had clarity and certainty around what, in fact, had happened, we publicly announced that, in fact, Russia had hacked into the DNC.​

​

And at that time, we did not attribute motives or any interpretations of why they had done so. We didn’t discuss what the effects of it might be. We simply let people know -- the public know, just as we had let members of Congress know -- that this had happened.​

​

And as a consequence, all of you wrote a lot of stories about both what had happened, and then you interpreted why that might have happened and what effect it was going to have on the election outcomes. We did not. And the reason we did not was because in this hyper-partisan atmosphere, at a time when my primary concern was making sure that the integrity of the election process was not in any way damaged, at a time when anything that was said by me or anybody in the White House would immediately be seen through a partisan lens, I wanted to make sure that everybody understood we were playing this thing straight -- that we weren’t trying to advantage one side or another, but what we were trying to do was let people know that this had taken place, and so if you started seeing effects on the election, if you were trying to measure why this was happening and how you should consume the information that was being leaked, that you might want to take this into account.​

​

And that's exactly how we should have handled it. Imagine if we had done the opposite. It would have become immediately just one more political scrum. And part of the goal here was to make sure that we did not do the work of the leakers for them by raising more and more questions about the integrity of the election right before the election was taking place -- at a time, by the way, when the President-elect himself was raising questions about the integrity of the election.​

​

And, finally, I think it's worth pointing out that the information was already out. It was in the hands of WikiLeaks, so that was going to come out no matter what. What I was concerned about, in particular, was making sure that that wasn’t compounded by potential hacking that could hamper vote counting, affect the actual election process itself.​

​

And so in early September, when I saw President Putin in China, I felt that the most effective way to ensure that that didn’t happen was to talk to him directly and tell him to cut it out, and there were going to be some serious consequences if he didn’t. And, in fact, we did not see further tampering of the election process. But the leaks through WikiLeaks had already occurred.​

So yeah, this is nonsense and Gabbard, Trump et al are trying to weaponize the DOJ.

Click to expand...

Sorry, strawmen and red herrings wont work on me. This has nothing to do with voter machines and everything to do with Obama abusing his powers to dig up dirt on Trump only to just make things up when they couldn't find anything for the sole purpose of keeping Trump out of the White house. That is clear and blatant election subversion and interference. Bigger than Watergate in my opinion.

durangodawood said:

I can release 100 pages of documents too.

Click to expand...

Go for it.

iluvatar5150 said:

She released over a hundred pages of emails and memos without any annotations or explanations of why they were relevant and, via the link on the DNI page, called it a "report". She also released an 11 page memo outlining a bunch of claims, many of which were obviously dishonest on their face. I went through a couple of them in the other thread:

Obama referred to DOJ for criminal charges

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-receives-gabbards-criminal-referral-bombshell-claims-obama-admin-manufactured-russian-collusion-hoax.amp The Department of Justice confirmed Monday that it has received Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's criminal referral related to her...

www.christianforums.com

Click to expand...

I think that perhaps the only reason that you believe those pages of documents are dishonest is because of the accusations towards the Obama administration.

Always in His Presence said:

"Over 100 documents that we released on Friday really detail and provide evidence of how this treasonous conspiracy was directed by President Obama just weeks before he was due to leave office after President Trump had already gotten elected. This is not a Democrat or Republican issue. This is an issue that is so serious it should concern every single American because it has to do with the integrity of our democratic republic," she continued.

Click to expand...

I am seeking clarification. If the intention was to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, why were these documents released after the election?

Always in His Presence said:

DOJ receives Gabbard's criminal referral on bombshell Russia claims | Fox News

Gabbard released unclassified documents that reportedly show "overwhelming evidence" that President Barack Obama and his team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump–Russia probe.

www.foxnews.com

The Department of Justice confirmed Monday that it has received Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard's criminal referral related to her bombshell claims that Obama-era officials "manufactured and politicized intelligence" to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, Fox News has confirmed.

The Department of Justice declined further comment, but confirmed to Fox News that the department received the referral.

Gabbard released unclassified documents Friday that reportedly show "overwhelming evidence" that then-President Barack Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the yearslong Trump-Russia collusion probe after Trump's election win against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Click to expand...

If it is determined that the Obama administration created a false narrative against President Trump, I hope that any individuals found responsible will go through the judicial process and be held accountable according to the law.

However I have one question

If the Obama administration's goal was to defeat President Trump in the 2016 election by having the intelligence community and FBI create the Russia narrative, why was this kept secret until after the election? What was the point of the Russia "hoax" if it wasn't shared with the public or leaked to the media? The FBI disclosed information about Anthony Weiner’s laptop shortly before the election, but nothing about Russia. Doesn't this suggest the administration had objectives beyond influencing the election outcome?

DaisyDay said:

Luis Leon, 82, lost his wallet which contained his green card issued in 1987 after receiving asylum from Chile post-torture. He went with his wife to an immigration office in Philadelphia for a replacement. From there, he was disappeared.

Chilean man in photos died in 2021, had a different name, Chilean media reports

Photographs purported to be of Luis Leon — who a woman claiming to be his granddaughter said was a Chilean national taken into custody by ICE and ended up in Guatemala — are actually of a man with …

www.mcall.com

​

The last time anyone in the family saw Leon was June 20, when he went with his wife to a Philadelphia immigration office to have his lost green card replaced.​

​

There, the family says, he was handcuffed by two officers, who led him away without explanation. His wife, who speaks little English, was left behind and kept in the building for 10 hours until she was released to her granddaughter, the family says.​

​

Repeated inquiries to immigration officials, prisons, hospitals and even a morgue yielded no information. Leon’s name was not in ICE’s online database of detainees.​

​

Finally, on Friday, a relative from Leon’s native Chile was told he had been taken first to a detention center in Minnesota and then to Guatemala. The hospital, citing privacy rules, would not verify his presence there when contacted by The Morning Call.​

​

Chile's Pinochet was famous for disappearing its people. I think he has a modern day rival.

Click to expand...

This is why some argue that such deportations should go through better due process. I suppose ICE can cancel anyone's visa as it is a privilege, but even a driver has a chance to maintain their driving privilege before a court. At 82 he likely was on some medication (s) which were probably missed. It might be wise to seek a hospital visit for any elderly foreigner facing confinement and possible deportation by ICE. At least then there would be a record of their failure if they decided to ignore that and deport. If this continues ICE is going to end up killing some people from their aggressiveness. I pray they offer compassion to all foreigners both legal and illegal, with most if not all deportations going to those that cause harm.