TUESDAY [Part ONE]

donbrooks777
18 hours ago
12 min read

New BLOG – Great ARTICLES

TUESDAY 8 -[11]-26

[PART ONE]

SPIRITUAL:

Pastor – Jack HIBBS

Genesis 14:22-23

“But Abram said to the king of Sodom, ‘I have raised my hand to the LORD, God Most High, the Possessor of heaven and earth, that I will take nothing, from a thread to a sandal strap, and that I will not take anything that is yours, lest you should say, “I have made Abram rich….'”

The Bible says elsewhere that “the righteous man walks in his integrity,” and in this passage, we see Abram doing just that. He believed the Lord and lived out the claims of his faith. How do we come by such a virtue? Integrity can certainly be taught in the home, although some things are best solidified through experience.

As Abram returned from a battle, the king of Sodom came out to greet him, as did the king of Salem—two kings representing two ways of living. The king of Salem bestowed sustenance and blessing versus the king of Sodom, who offered a deal with quick results and promised wealth. (Genesis 14:17-21) Abram could have reasoned that Sodom’s offering was the means of God’s blessing. Yet he wisely saw the danger of depending upon external things that can be seen and touched and must eventually yield to time and return to the dust.

Abram’s integrity was strengthened as he chose to rely upon the “Possessor of heaven and earth” rather than men. He believed God was faithful and had no need to take what Sodom offered, not even a thread of a sandal strap!

The temptation of accepting the immediate rewards of man in place of God’s provision continues to challenge believers today. We would all do well within our homes and the church if we followed Abram’s refusal of carnal means and methods. By the grace of God, may we learn to rely on Him alone, for His glory and our growth.

– Pastor Jack

Have you been blessed by Pastor Jack’s Devotions? Email us now: CLICK

Monday, Aug 10, 2026

The Bible says elsewhere that "the righteous man walks in his integrity," and in this passage, we see Abram doing just that. He believed the Lord and lived out the claims of his faith. How do we come by such a virtue? Integrity can certainly be taught in the home, although some things are best solidified through experience.

As Abram returned from a battle, the king of Sodom came out to greet him, as did the king of Salem—two kings representing two ways of living. The king of Salem bestowed sustenance and blessing versus the king of Sodom, who offered a deal with quick results and promised wealth. (Genesis 14:17-21) Abram could have reasoned that Sodom's offering was the means of God's blessing. Yet he wisely saw the danger of depending upon external things that can be seen and touched and must eventually yield to time and return to the dust.

Abram's integrity was strengthened as he chose to rely upon the "Possessor of heaven and earth" rather than men. He believed God was faithful and had no need to take what Sodom offered, not even a thread of a sandal strap!

The temptation of accepting the immediate rewards of man in place of God's provision continues to challenge believers today. We would all do well within our homes and the church if we followed Abram's refusal of carnal means and methods. By the grace of God, may we learn to rely on Him alone, for His glory and our growth.

Awaiting His Return,

Pastor – Jack HIBBS

CANADIAN:

Juno Jump Start: Audit exposes fraud at Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department

Audit finds Department of Foreign Affairs fraught with fraud

An audit of Canada’s Nairobi embassy found fraud and financial misconduct, including suspected fuel theft and managers splitting expenses to avoid scrutiny.

Auditors also flagged unauthorized spending, questionable contracts and inflated overtime. Similar problems have been uncovered at Canadian missions around the world.

Past audits found a $1.7 million fraud ring in Haiti, a $145,000 unauthorized expense in Addis Ababa and a contractor in Amman paid $542,000. Keep Reading

Nova Scotia court rules tent qualifies for welfare shelter benefits

A Nova Scotia court ruled that a tent can legally qualify as “accommodation” for welfare purposes after a Halifax man was initially denied a $974 monthly shelter benefit.

The man, Bradley Lowe, was living in a tent in Victoria Park and received $380 in income assistance but was denied the additional shelter allowance because he was deemed “unhoused.”

The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, finding the definition of accommodation could include “any shelter or housing situation.” Keep Reading

Man arrested after bomb threat at U.S. consulate in Halifax

A 54-year-old man was arrested after a bomb threat targeting the U.S. Consulate in Halifax forced the evacuation of nearby office towers and waterfront streets.

Police found his vehicle at a downtown parkade with a propane tank and several containers believed to contain flammable liquid inside. The Explosive Disposal Unit later determined there was no threat to public safety.

The incident marks the third time this year a U.S. consulate in Canada has been targeted, following two shootings at the U.S. Consulate in Toronto. Keep Reading

Calgary water park shut down after E. coli outbreak

Three cases of E. coli have been linked to Calgary’s Prairie Winds water park, prompting Alberta Health Services to shut down the facility until the end of the week. Water samples showed bacterial levels far above acceptable standards, with anyone who visited between July 25 and August 4 potentially affected. Keep Reading

Jewish group raises foreign agent concerns after synagogue shooting arrests

York Regional Police have arrested the third and final suspect in a string of March shootings targeting synagogues in Toronto and Vaughan, while the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs is urging investigators to determine whether foreign actors recruited, directed or financed the attacks. CIJA pointed to warnings from Canadian security officials about Iran potentially directing local criminal networks to carry out violence in Canada. Keep Reading

OP-ED: Does a Quebec indigenous tribe own Ottawa?

“Ignoring recorded historical facts and age-old accepted practices is now routine when it comes to the land back claims made by indigenous people across Canada.” Keep Reading

The JUNO News

TRUMP:

Legal experts say National Trust faces uphill standing fight at Supreme Court over White House ballroom

Alex Tanzer

Legal analysts say the National Trust for Historic Preservation will struggle to prove it has legal standing to block President Trump's White House ballroom, a weakness that could let the Supreme Court end the case without ever ruling on the construction itself.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's preliminary injunction in a 2-1 decision, ruling that the Trump administration cannot proceed with above-ground construction of the ballroom without Congressional authorization. The court stayed its own ruling for 14 days, giving the administration a window to appeal to the Supreme Court, a step Trump vowed to take in a social media post shortly after the decision came down.

But two legal experts who spoke to Fox News Digital said the National Trust's case rests on shaky ground, not because of the constitutional question about Congressional authority, but because of the far more basic question of whether the group's plaintiff has suffered an actual injury.

One passerby's "aesthetic displeasure" carries the entire lawsuit

The National Trust built its standing argument around a single member, Alison Hoagland, who lives near the White House and says she visits President's Park about once a month. Hoagland argued that the proposed ballroom's size and design would diminish her enjoyment of the area by overshadowing the White House and weakening its aesthetic appeal.

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump first-term appointee to the D.C. Circuit, wrote the lone dissent. She took direct aim at that standing theory:

"The district court elevated the aesthetic displeasure of a single passerby over the government's security interests in the ballroom and the security risks of leaving an open construction site at the President's home and office."

Abhishek Kambli, a former Justice Department attorney, told Fox News Digital that Rao's reasoning on standing is likely to resonate with the current Supreme Court. Aesthetic standing, he explained, typically requires that a plaintiff intend to use the property in question, not merely walk past it.

"Normally, aesthetic standing requires that you intend to use it. So, for instance, if you're planning to be visiting the East Ballroom, and even this is kind of a stretch, that's one thing, but if you're someone on the outside that just passes it by, that's a little tougher."

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, was blunter. He told Fox News Digital that the Supreme Court's own precedent demands a "concrete, actual injury" before a lawsuit can proceed:

"The idea that a passerby, who claims she will be aesthetically injured because of what she sees at the White House, has an actual injury is absurd, and obviously, and clearly defies that precedent."

Standing could let the justices sidestep the constitutional question entirely

Both experts said the Supreme Court may never need to reach the underlying dispute, whether Congress must approve new construction on federal property in Washington, D.C., if it concludes the National Trust's plaintiff lacks standing in the first place. Von Spakovsky put it plainly:

"The Supreme Court won't rule on the substantive issue if it can dismiss the case based on a lack of standing by the plaintiffs. I also don't know of anyone else who could establish standing to bring a lawsuit. Perhaps Congress could collectively, but the chances of that happening are very slim given the partisan divides in both the House and Senate."

That framing matters. If the Court tosses the case on standing, the question of whether a president needs Congressional sign-off for improvements to the White House goes unanswered, and the injunction blocking construction goes away.

Kambli also argued that the administration has a strong case on the merits. The White House's legal position holds that existing law already gives the president authority to make alterations and improvements to federal property, including the White House. Kambli drew a common-sense comparison:

"For instance, if I have an extension to my house, it doesn't become a new house. It's the same house, but that's an improvement done on the house. Or if I tear down some walls and then just create an open living space in my like between my living room and my kitchen, that's also not a new house at that point."

The National Trust's position is the opposite: that federal law requires Congress to authorize new construction on federal property in the nation's capital. The D.C. Circuit majority sided with that reading, writing that "whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help," AP News reported.

$400 million project already drew a Congressional rebuff

The proposed ballroom would span 90,000 square feet on the site of the demolished White House East Wing. The administration had requested $1 billion for the project, which Congress refused in May. Democrats warned that $350 million in tax-cut-law funds appeared to have been redirected to the White House for the construction, according to AP News. The project's cost has been reported at $400 million, a figure that, Newsmax noted, has doubled from initial projections.

Underground construction of a military and national security facility beneath the proposed ballroom site has been allowed to continue under the court's order. Trump displayed a rendering of the proposed ballroom during an October 22, 2025 Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Trump responded to the ruling on social media, calling it "unjust" and framing the blocked construction as a national security concern. "The Military and Secret Service are viewing this horrendous, politically motivated, and unlawful ruling as a National Security threat to our Nation," the president wrote. In a separate post, he added: "It will be magnificent, safe, and secure!"

A prior ruling on standing cuts against the National Trust

The standing question is not new to this summer's White House legal battles. Earlier in July, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, an Obama appointee, rejected a separate lawsuit seeking to block the America 250 UFC event at the White House. Mehta ruled that the plaintiffs had not met the standard of aesthetic harm needed to establish standing.

That ruling, from a judge appointed by a Democratic president, undercuts the D.C. Circuit majority's willingness to credit Hoagland's aesthetic-injury claim. If an Obama-appointed district judge found aesthetic harm insufficient in a parallel White House dispute, the Supreme Court, with its current conservative majority and strict standing requirements, may reach the same conclusion here.

National Trust President and CEO Brent Leggs welcomed the D.C. Circuit's decision in a statement:

"This is a great day for our country and for the American people's right to voice their opinions about the historic places they cherish, including the White House. From the beginning, our position has been clear and consistent: the law states that only Congress can authorize the construction of a ballroom at the White House."

The National Trust's lawyer, Thaddeus Heuer, told Newsmax that the administration's core problem is procedural: "They just don't want to go to Congress."

The D.C. Circuit itself acknowledged limits to its ruling. The court said its decision "does not mean" the ballroom should not be built, only that it cannot be built during the litigation "without securing Congress's authorization, as the Constitution and laws require," Breitbart reported.

Kambli told Fox News Digital that the National Trust also faces a property-ownership problem. While the organization holds some historic properties, President's Park, where the East Wing ballroom site sits, is not among them.

"I think that's going to be a very tough argument to sustain, especially with the Supreme Court, that's more likely to agree with Rao than they are the [circuit court] majority, given the makeup of the Supreme Court, and the fact that the Supreme Court is very strict on standing."

Fourteen days and a nine-justice audience

The 14-day stay gives the administration a narrow window to petition the Supreme Court. If the justices agree to hear the case, the central question may not be whether Congress must approve White House construction. It may be whether a nonprofit's member who strolls past the building once a month has suffered enough harm to drag a president into court in the first place.

A legal system that lets one passerby's aesthetic preferences override a president's security decisions at his own residence is not protecting historic preservation. It is inviting every advocacy group in Washington to govern by injunction.

The AMERICAN Almanac

GLOBAL:

Tim Burchett SHUTS UP AOC's woke rant, plays a video that makes her tiny brain explode

GOP Rep. Tim Burchett shut down Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ridiculous rant trying to defend transgender athletes competing against females in women’s sports by playing an uncomfortably damning video.

The Video showed the Result of a TRANNY hitting a Girl in the FACE... Knocking out... her two front Teeth!

“Recently, during a field hockey game in Massachusetts a biological male hit a female player in the face, knocking her two front teeth out!” Burchett said. “These are not rare occurrences, you can find them all over the place!”

Watch the congress clash here:

Click To Watch Video

The PolitiBrawl

Patrick Bestall’s INPUT:

#1.

Zelensky's uncivilized war

Russia’s Investigative Committee said one of the civilians killed was a minor. The agency has designated the Ukrainian attack as an act of terrorism, stressing that the targeted locations “had nothing to do with military activities.”

13 killed in Ukrainian drone raid on Russia’s Tatarstan — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

.pb comment: Zelensky's new Commander, Mr. Tough Guy, is aiming for civilians now. Russia does not use civilians as human shields like some other nations do.

Three dead as Ukrainian barrage hits residential buildings in Russia’s Belgorod – governor (VIDEOS) — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

‘People screaming and running’ – witnesses recall Ukrainian drone strike on Russian beach — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

.PB

#2.

Holy Spirit: advocate & accuser, helper & hard-hitter, feminine & masculine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBAxPpNShlI

the Spirit does more than defend us from the long arm of God's Law. In John 16:8–11, Jesus says the parakletos will "prove the world wrong" about sin, righteousness, and judgment — using the Greek verb elegcho, a courtroom term meaning to cross-examine and expose falsehood with irrefutable evidence. The defender becomes the prosecutor. The advocate puts the world itself on trial.

In Proverbs 8, Wisdom is she who participated in creation. Yet in Genesis 1, the Spirit is he who hovered over the waters to help in creation.

.PB

#3.

420 Arsonists in France!?

France detains hundreds over suspected wildfire offenses — RT World News

.PB

#4.

Aug 22 BBQ With Pierre Poilievre + Aug 23 BBQ in London!

Find out what the ‘CONSERVATIVES’ are PLANNING to WIN BACK CONTROL of OUR DESTINY!

Join Us for A Summer BBQ With Pierre Poilievre

I hope you are all enjoying a wonderful summer.

In case you have not yet received the invitation, our leader Pierre Poilievre will be joining Conservatives from across Southwestern Ontario for a summer BBQ in Woodstock.

This free, family-friendly event is a great opportunity to meet Pierre, reconnect with fellow Conservatives, and discuss the next steps for our party and our work in London West.

Please register using the link below, and feel free to bring your family:

Saturday, August 22 12:00 p.m.

Outdoor Farm Show Grounds,

744906 Oxford Road 17,

Woodstock, ON

CLICK HERE to REGISTER for the BBQ: https://www.conservative.ca/southwest-ontario-summer-bbq-with-pierre-poilievre/

.PB

#5.

Snotty Canadians

Proud Canadians look down their noses at Americans. I don't think it's entirely the result of our government influence over our media (via grants and advertising). We've had this stuck-up attitude ever since I started collecting research on Canadians vs Americans 40 years ago. We take pride in being the most tolerant. Look up that word in your bible. Patience beats Politeness.

.pb