portland oregon is still in head need this morning 82 days if looting and burning property.
Posted : 15 Aug, 2020 09:10 AM
Regarding the KKK being started by the Democratic Party I have a little historical context that may help prove your point that I'd like to share if I may...
So far as I know, this is correct. Their first "Grand Wizard" was a man named Nathan Bedford Forrest. He fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War and was a pledge delegate to the Democrat National Committee. In the latter half of the 19th century, the KKK has been referred to as the "domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party." I used to think the mainstream media was their modern day equivalent, but with the violence from BLM and Antifa, the mainstream media might have some competition for that title!
The DNC was at one time referred to as the Klan Bake because so many of the people in attendance were associated with them. Their ranks surged when the Dem. party refused to condemn the Klan in their platform under the leadership of Woodrow Wilson, who was quoted directly in the film "The Birth of a Nation" which was the first film screened in the White House by Pres. Wilson and was used as a Klan recruitment video.
Robert Bird was known as the "Conscience of the Senate" but he was also a known KKK recruiter and helped with the 75 hour filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At his funeral in 2010, Bill Clinton said in his eulogy that you "couldn't blame" him for being in the KKK in those days because back then you HAD TO be in the Klan to advance in the Democratic Party. (******What????******) How many political parties do we know of that required you be part of a HATE GROUP to advance in their ranks????
Do the Republicans have anything that matches? No. They were founded in 1854 as an anti slavery party and their 9 point platform (you can see it at Wallbuilders) is all about emancipation and equal rights for blacks and all people regardless of race.
Recently, I saw a representative named Louie Gohmert (R) propose a resolution to ban any group from the House of Representatives under the same law Nancy Pelosi pushed to get passed that allowed for busts, paintings, and statues of those tied to racism to be removed and donated to the Library of Congress. For the history I just described, this would mean the Democratic Party would be banned from the House of Representatives until they disbanded or changed their name!
Socialism and its cousin, communism, violate at least 4 of the 10 Commandments:
First, it makes government into god ("You shall have no other gods before Me"). Communist nations in particular often outright ban religion of any kind or at least severely regulate its practice. When the government makes it so that you have to count on them rather than God or family for your needs, your government has asserted itself to be a god over your life.
Second, it's government sanctioned theft ("You shall not steal [secretly, openly, fraudulently, or through carelessness]"). It's theft of your belongings, resources, and labor. If slavery can be thought of as 100% taxation, then Progressive and socialist leaders are raising taxes higher and higher, all the while approaching complete enslavement. Socialist and communist regimes are brutally efficient at collecting all of the resources from those who fall within their sphere of influence. However, they're lousy at the redistribution part.
Third, it encourages and is a manifestation of covetous behavior ("You shall not covet [that is, selfishly desire and attempt to acquire] your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor"). Socialist and communist nations seek to create sameness among their citizens so that everyone has the same things and everyone is on the same level. Any inequality among people is a violation of equity to a socialist and must be corrected, encouraging a sort of "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality that means not to just see what you have to do to keep up with the Joneses, but to make sure they don't get ahead in the first place.
Finally, socialism commits murder or at the very least negligent homicide ("You shall not commit murder (unjustified, deliberate homicide)"). As stated before, despite their efficiency at extracting everything from their citizens, socialism always seems to redistribute with an eye dropper. They always seem to run out of the bare necessities. Just look at the bread lines in Venezuela. Just look at the Holodomor in Ukraine perpetrated by Stalin's USSR. These governments take complete control of their citizens' lives, and so take on the responsibility to make sure the people have what they need to live, but they fail so miserably at it that countless people literally starve to death thanks to the neglect, or perhaps even malicious withholding of the basic necessities of life.
Furthermore, there are millions who are put to death or who simply "disappear" in these countries because the lie of socialism's effectiveness and benevolence is such a lie that it relies on COMPLETE compliance with the lie from everyone. Any discord or disagreement must be met with lethal measures to enforce that compliance. Such things have been seen in Mao's Great Purge, the USSR, and socialist and communist regimes around the world throughout the last century.
After up to 100 million people murdered in the last century alone and millions more under relentless oppression, can we not agree that socialism is indeed evil?
Where you start your reading relationship with God is really up to you and how you want to get to know God first, ultimately. You're still learning about the same God regardless of which part of the Bible you start in. You're just starting at different points in humanity's relationship with Him. If you're someone who prefers to start at the very beginning of things and work forward from there, you might prefer to start with the Old Testament. If you want to get a feel for where our relationship with God is now to start your journey, it's probably best to start with the New Testament and then back track from there. This is how many people start.
If someone wants to get to know who Jesus is from a detailed and engaging source first to get them started, the Gospel of John in particular is an eyewitness account of Jesus' ministry from someone who was very passionate with his writing and often put more details into it that may not appear in some of the other gospels, which can make John's Gospel an easier and more engaging read for someone who is just getting their feet wet.
First of all, there are statistics for "white on white" crime. However, it's usually only brought up when trying to discuss the rates at which different demographics commit crimes against each other. However, I suspect that "white on white" crime is not a phrase we hear very often for the same reason we don't hear much about unarmed white people being killed by police. For one thing, there is no "white lives matter" movement to protest, riot, and tear up neighborhoods whenever an unarmed white person is killed by police.
To understand why white-on white crime is not brought up, we also have to examine why black-on-black crime is. What is it used in response to? What is the point that the person bringing it up is trying to convey?
Black-on-black crime is invoked in response to the anger and feelings of injustice whenever a black person, particularly if they are unarmed at the time, dies at the hands of police. It is brought up because the number of crimes, most especially murder of black people by other black people far outstrips the number of black people shot and killed by the police. What those who bring up black-on-black crime are therefore seeing is a disconnect between the message of BLM that "black lives matter" and what types of incidents they choose to take action about.
For instance, far more black babies are murdered in the womb than ever die at the hands of police (e.g. 25,698 reported abortions in New York City alone in the year 2015 according to the New York State Department of Health), yet BLM is silent. In fact, many vehemently defend this atrocity. Every era has its atrocities that make us wonder why they were ever considered acceptable. This, I suspect, will be one of our era's. BLM is silent about black police officers like David Dorn, who die at the hands of those they swore to protect and serve. And finally, BLM turns a blind eye to innocent blacks and black business owners who lose everything because protestors and looters destroy their property and their livelihoods.
If black lives really do matter to BLM, why do they not address these issues? I, like so many who bring these things up, do not do so to minimize the tragic loss of life that can happen in altercations between law enforcement officers and the public. However, when looking at just the numbers, it is a much smaller problem than the loss of life to abortion and the senseless destruction of livelihoods and killing of other innocent people by rioters. Yet these don't seem to be on the radar of the Left. In fact, many leftists DEFEND the senseless destruction of life in abortions and leftist mayors and governors call off police who would otherwise risk life and limb to protect the public from rioters and looters.
D'Souza is one of my favorite speakers and historical resources. It wasn't until I saw 2016: Hillary's America that I started to really break out of what I call "student mode," which I define as "a mode of absorbing all information that's spoon fed to you through studying for exams without the time or will to double check what you're told, try to fill in gaps in what you're taught, or ask tough questions about what you're taught."
Another amazing resource for historical information is Wallbuilders. Its creator, David Barton is another treasure trove of information about the Christian origins of the US and its founding documents. His group is in possession of some of the rarest documents and artifacts in history from the American Founding with a collection that is quite possibly second only to the Library of Congress.
To give you an example of Wallbuilders' information, Dinesh D'Souza points to Sen. Strom Thurmond as the key evidence of a "big switch" between the Democrats and the Republicans to try to remove the blame for racism and slavery from the Democratic Party. In this idea, the racist Democrats (i.e. Dixiecrats) all became Republicans and the non-racist Republicans all became Democrats (as Dinesh has put it, 'The cops all became robbers and the robbers all became cops,'). Thurmond switched to the Republican Party and is basically one of only two examples that would support the notion of such a "big switch."
To the best of my knowledge, D'Souza never explains why Thurmond Switched. However, Barton does explain it in a conversation recently recorded with Steven Crowder. He indicated that Thurmond's switch wasn't just whimsy. It was accompanied by a conversion to Christianity and a subsequent dropping of his racist views. After he switched to the Republican party, he appointed several African Americans to key positions in his staff, not to token 'nothing' positions, the way President Woodrow Wilson had, but as key strategists and advisors. His switch was clearly accompanied by a change of heart and mind.
Wallbuilders' overall mission is to raise the awareness of Christianity's role in the founding of the United States, and they manage to do so quite effectively and would be another great resource to consult for anyone looking for a more complete view of history beyond the cherry picked names and dates thrown at us as students.
I can certainly see that as a possibility, Alligator. I remember hearing similar ideas of someone putting Obama into the White House by similar means floating around while he was president.
While manipulation of someone in office seems to be generally possible with anyone so long as their scrupples are low enough and the offer for a reward is high enough. However, I would also agree that someone who cannot operate very well independently (like Biden seems to be) would be that much easier to control, which gives more credence to the idea that Biden had help. It all just depends on exactly how much of what we see happening is actually being controlled by someone on the outside like Soros.
I'm a bit puzzled by how Biden ended up being the nominee either, except by default. He was one of the weakest of the candidates, but ended up as the nominee anyway.
Normally, when sending a nominee to face a strong incumbent, the opposition party sends a weak candidate that only works as a placeholder. They make a good show, but the party doesn't necessarily expect the candidate to win.
Under normal circumstances, I'd figure Biden to be this weak candidate that's just sent in so that the stronger candidates don't have to face a popular incumbent, but the Democrats have been bent upon making the Trump presidency a one term presidency or less. It sounds a lot like they just got stuck with Biden when the other candidates had to drop away for various reasons including Bernie Sanders, who dropped away even though it looked like he might beat Biden in the primary. I'm just surprised they haven't made much noise about trying to get Biden replaced with a stronger candidate.
Regarding Biden's running mate: The Biden campaign promised to appoint a woman as a running mate. It would likely anger Democrat voters if the Biden campaign chose a man after making that promise unless the public has forgotten that promise in the wake of COVID-19. As such, I highly doubt Barack Obama would become the running mate. I can see him possibly asking either Elizabeth Warren or perhaps Kamala Harris to be the vice presidential candidate.
Interesting moves, insinuating that I might be a homosexual. Deny it and it looks to you like I’m trying to cover something, hide something, or compensate for something. Denials for you are just more evidence of the opposite.
If I ignore it, you’ll think I accept the insinuation. You must really hate me to go this far. You lost the battle in the Bible, you lost the battle in figuring out one another’s intentions, so it’s on to lies and personal attacks.
The ground is crumbling from underneath you, Prophetic, and we can all see it in your feeble attempts to hurt me. In your mad scramble for personal ammunition to use on me, you make wild false assumptions about me, my life, my beliefs, and my preferences for a wife. You’ll even smear a nameless, faceless friend that appears in my photo. Your desperation betrays you.
When others have been backing me up, you’ve continued targeting me. When I make the call of what I think you’re looking for on here, you hurl the most vicious and disgusting personal attacks I’ve ever seen on this forum. I’m done with you.
WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) - A Dallas megachurch whose pastor has been a vocal supporter of President Donald Trump was approved for a **FORGIVABLE** loan worth $2 million to $5 million, according to long-awaitedVice President Mike Pence spoke at a rally last month at the First Baptist Church of Dallas, whose pastor, Robert Jeffress, has been on Trump's evangelical advisory board government data released on Monday. Vice President Mike Pence spoke at a rally last month the the Firtst Baptist Church of Dallas, whose pastor, Robert Jeffress, has been on Trump's evangelical advisory board!!
Posted : 13 Jul, 2020 02:09 PM
I don’t “belong” to the UMC. I belong to God. He’s the one who purchased my salvation with His Son’s blood on Calvary. Who I choose to worship my Redeemer with is a matter of personal choice, not beliefs.
I guess I was right about you, Prophetic. You’re a cult leader in search of a cult. If I had been wrong, you wouldn’t have gone on a mad scramble to find personal information on me to use against me. You wouldn’t be continuing to scramble to attack everything you can find that you think will hurt me if I hadn’t struck a nerve with you.
Like any cult leader, you assume that because I don’t “belong” or “submit” to YOU that therefore I must belong or submit to some other silly worldly institution like the United Methodist Church or academia and then you proceed to try to smash down what you think I belong to in the hopes that I’ll turn to you instead.
You know nothing of me, my background, or my beliefs. For all your Biblical memorization you have no wisdom, no power, and no authority over anyone. For all your memorization, you have nothing to hurt me with; nothing to reach me with. You can type libelous garbage about me and the people who I choose to worship God with until your fingers tie themselves in knots, but you’re just spitting into the wind. You lost that battle before you even began. All you can do is assume, but that is not knowing.
What religious cult leaders never seem to understand is that the Scriptures are written to protect the innocent from falling for the traps laid down by cult leaders. The Bible is written to bring people together to follow God, not a man, no matter how much of it he’s memorized. That’s why it’s such a clumsy weapon in your hands, and you have to resort to your other ugly methods like bullying, libel, and inane accusations in order to beat people into submission to you. You become more transparent with every quote, every post, every slanderous remark.
