-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
January 20th 2025 - Donald Trump is BACK!
- Thread starter Man_in_the_Middle
- Start date
Nodes of federal censorship:
www.zerohedge.com
liber-net.org
Key Nodes Of Federal Government Censorship | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
Report: Federal Policy Proposals to Protect Digital Free Speech in the United States - liber-net
liber-net is proud to release our latest initiative which addresses the broad pattern of overreach by the U.S. federal government to target "misinformation,
liber-net.org
Don't count on the 'Supreme Court' to do the right thing when it comes to Black-robed priest of Satan overturning the Constitution...they don't even read it:
www.zerohedge.com
The 7-2 decision Wednesday was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch (!) and upholds the rule for continued regulation by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as well as opening the door to requiring background checks and age verification in order to purchase the kits.
In the ruling, Gorsuch wrote, “Some home hobbyists enjoy assembling them. But criminals also find them attractive.”
Many criminals enjoy wearing black robes, too, and pretending to be dictators.
The word "Second Amendment" does not even appear in the decision.
Supreme Court Upholds Biden-Era Rule On Regulation Of "Ghost Guns" | ZeroHedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
The 7-2 decision Wednesday was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch (!) and upholds the rule for continued regulation by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as well as opening the door to requiring background checks and age verification in order to purchase the kits.
In the ruling, Gorsuch wrote, “Some home hobbyists enjoy assembling them. But criminals also find them attractive.”
Many criminals enjoy wearing black robes, too, and pretending to be dictators.
The word "Second Amendment" does not even appear in the decision.
I don't get into politics very often but I've got to say, I find it unfathomable that there are so many people who profess to be Disciples of Christ yet are rejoicing over the fact that one of the five most un-Christlike men on the planet is now at the head of the most powerful (and deadliest) nation in Human history, especially while that same man openly proclaims his desire to break treaties (so much for "let your yes be yes and your no be no," right?) and attack neighbors just because he feels like he can (because Christ was a "might makes right" kind of guy and that "the meek shall inherit" stuff was all just a lark, of course).
Just to indulge Eve's folly (curiosity) for a second here, I'm curious. Is anybody bothered over the fact that by reopening Bagram Air Force Base at the request of the Taliban government, with Taliban oversight of it, he has made us a de-facto ally of the Taliban?
Or that he has been quite open about his fawning admiration for a KGB-raised dictator enthroned in Gog (Russia)?
Or that his ambassador to the UN voted shoulder-to-shoulder with China, Iran and North Korea, and against quite literally every nation on the planet with a Christian majority except Brazil, by refusing to condemn a nation that has bombed more churches and murdered more priests in three years than ISIS has since it was founded (Russia again)?
Or that he has provoked both our neighbors (including the one that has been our closest ally for a century) into entertaining talks of a mutual defense pact with China?
Or that his Vice-President has publicly proclaimed that he does not consider the US to be bound by its own signature on any treaty signed by any administration before this one?
Or that he is the only president in my lifetime to enter office while under investigation for rape?
Or that his Major Domo has publicly stated he considers empathy to be the West's greatest weakness (which is the direct polar antithesis of absolutely every word that ever came out of Yeshua's mouth)?
And for that matter, is anybody bothered by the fact that the first three on that list all fulfill the definition of treason as defined in Article III Section 3 of the Constitution?
Just to indulge Eve's folly (curiosity) for a second here, I'm curious. Is anybody bothered over the fact that by reopening Bagram Air Force Base at the request of the Taliban government, with Taliban oversight of it, he has made us a de-facto ally of the Taliban?
Or that he has been quite open about his fawning admiration for a KGB-raised dictator enthroned in Gog (Russia)?
Or that his ambassador to the UN voted shoulder-to-shoulder with China, Iran and North Korea, and against quite literally every nation on the planet with a Christian majority except Brazil, by refusing to condemn a nation that has bombed more churches and murdered more priests in three years than ISIS has since it was founded (Russia again)?
Or that he has provoked both our neighbors (including the one that has been our closest ally for a century) into entertaining talks of a mutual defense pact with China?
Or that his Vice-President has publicly proclaimed that he does not consider the US to be bound by its own signature on any treaty signed by any administration before this one?
Or that he is the only president in my lifetime to enter office while under investigation for rape?
Or that his Major Domo has publicly stated he considers empathy to be the West's greatest weakness (which is the direct polar antithesis of absolutely every word that ever came out of Yeshua's mouth)?
And for that matter, is anybody bothered by the fact that the first three on that list all fulfill the definition of treason as defined in Article III Section 3 of the Constitution?
Shall we go back to a senile, Bill-of-Rights hating, puppet dictator then? And his designated whore replacement?
Did he give that same Afghan terror group $85 billion in high-tech weaponry? Or bring in literally millions of invaders?
And please don't talk about treason. The Deep State Minions who gang-raped the Constitution decades ago certainly don't. Fauci, for one obvious, should have been tried and convicted by now. Hitlery sold out this nation long before she even was selected for dictator. Schumer, Schiff, Bang-Bang with Fang-Fang, Pelosi, Mayorkas, Clapper, Garland, Comey...and nauseum. And now Boesberg, Chutkan, after Merchan.
If the actually-elected guy has fallen short, along with his AG and FBI director, start there.
Did he give that same Afghan terror group $85 billion in high-tech weaponry? Or bring in literally millions of invaders?
And please don't talk about treason. The Deep State Minions who gang-raped the Constitution decades ago certainly don't. Fauci, for one obvious, should have been tried and convicted by now. Hitlery sold out this nation long before she even was selected for dictator. Schumer, Schiff, Bang-Bang with Fang-Fang, Pelosi, Mayorkas, Clapper, Garland, Comey...and nauseum. And now Boesberg, Chutkan, after Merchan.
If the actually-elected guy has fallen short, along with his AG and FBI director, start there.
Bo
For everyone else, let me explain. It's a logical fallacy known in low-brow circles as "whataboutism." In laymen's terms it is the tactic of attempting to avoid one's inability to defend against an accusation, by insisting it's okay because others are guilty of offenses as well.
Your post does not contain a single line that even attempts to hide its nature as precisely this fallacy.
You didn't answer a single allegation. All you did was insist that you are fine with it because you didn't like his predecessor, and attempt to attack me for daring to dislike your beloved self-proclaimed Caesar.
Are you familiar with the phrase tu quoque? Given your self-professed expertise in every subject known to the mind of Mankind, I'm sure you do. I'm sure you're more fluent in Latin than any of the Romans were, and probably have a best-selling book somewhere about how you helped Romulus and Remus invent the language.
For everyone else, let me explain. It's a logical fallacy known in low-brow circles as "whataboutism." In laymen's terms it is the tactic of attempting to avoid one's inability to defend against an accusation, by insisting it's okay because others are guilty of offenses as well.
Your post does not contain a single line that even attempts to hide its nature as precisely this fallacy.
You didn't answer a single allegation. All you did was insist that you are fine with it because you didn't like his predecessor, and attempt to attack me for daring to dislike your beloved self-proclaimed Caesar.
I'm not defending the man you refer to as "Caesar."
But I see honest debate isn't in your wheelhouse, particularly when it comes to Constitutional issues.
Just pointing out the obvious. A yellow dog would be an improvement over the situation we had.
Why didn't YOU single-handedly fix all of that treason?
PS> And you didn't even read THIS thread, did you? Or you'd have seen through your own logical failure.
But I see honest debate isn't in your wheelhouse, particularly when it comes to Constitutional issues.
Just pointing out the obvious. A yellow dog would be an improvement over the situation we had.
Wow. When it comes to hubris, I'm clearly outgunned.
Why didn't YOU single-handedly fix all of that treason?
PS> And you didn't even read THIS thread, did you? Or you'd have seen through your own logical failure.
Wow, that’s quite a judgement. I wonder at the qualifications to make it, but I don’t really care. Let’s discuss something real.
What would you have had me do with my vote?
Given such deranged ranting* - I suspect you know better than to expect a reasoned answer.
--------------------------------------
*Still, idiocy of this magnitude should not go unchallenged:
Because they were in general hyperbolic Bull$#!t. And most of us, having been accused of being "fascists" for knowing what the word actually means, or called other names ranging from 'racist' to 'terrorist' for believing that the First Amendment should still apply, even in the DC Swamp, strongly suspect answers will continue to be ignored, or worse.
Like -
Which can only mean The Rapist President, Bill Clinton. He put a blue stain on the term "Bimbo Eruption," because there were at least five credible rape claims.
Oh - "under investigation." I see, SOME criminals are above the law, others get the 'Crossfire Hurricane' treatment. Are there really people who still can't see through the Merchans, Boasbergs, and Chutkans of the AmeriKan Soviet?
And, yes, I'm an expert on the Constitution for these united States.** I know what "shall not be infringed" means, in the original English. And how the First Amendment has been gang-raped for years, but especially the last four-plus. And I know that treason shall consist in "levying War" against the States, and giving "Aid and comfort" to their enemies.
Whether that's encouraging millions upon millions of invaders, foreign military and terrorists, giving THEM aid and comfort, or giving them tens of billions in armaments (as in those "Taliban", which I noted, and was mocked in stunning ignorance), or billions in "Magic Money" via unconstitutional TLAs. All the while attempting disarm, silence, surveil, and demonize actual Americans.
Been there, done that. And won't keep silent.
** I've taught it on national radio shows for over two decades. And offered a reward, too, to any who are ignorant enough to call the nation a "demonocracy." (Not a typo.) Or even a 'democracy' -- IFF they can find that word, in any form, in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights. Whereupon I demonstrate the lie, and show just how many ANTI-'democratic' elements [from the veto, to the Great Compromise, to the Bill of Rights itself] the Founders placed deliberately in the document, and what they thought of "the Devil's own Government."
Last edited:
That is no more a "judgement" than what anyone else on this site has made about any other candidate who has ever been discussed and my qualifications stem from Matthew 7:24, Matthew 10:16, Psalm 111:10, and Proverbs 9:10-12 for starters.
As for what I'd have had you do with your vote, I wouldn't have "had you" do a thing. Your vote is yours to cast. And make no mistake, I did not like Kamala Harris. Our choices were, as my Husband so eloquently stated in his August sermon "America's Threshing Floor," "which of two vessels would we prefer to have as God's punishment: a woman who hates God or a man who thinks he is God." If your choice was that the former was so repugnant that the latter is preferable than so be it.
What I raise eyebrows about is not that you chose Trump as the lesser of two evils (he may well have been), but that you fail to recognize him as evil at all. To decide he is less revolting than Kamala Harris is one thing. To actually support his wicked actions is another entirely. When David was at the threshing floor and was given a choice of punishments, after he chose three days with the Angel of Death tearing through Israel he didn't follow this up by cheering for the Angel of Death. He prayed for God to deliver him from the only choice he had, as my Husband and his household (along with more than 50 million others across America) have done ever since Trump was elected.
Now, as to your highly deflective "let's talk about something real," very well.
Let's.
And oh, look. I already did.
Not a single person has yet been able to answer a single one of these questions.
Perhaps if you'd like to "talk about something real," you'll have the courage to be the first on the site to do so. Though my prediction is not one person on the site will, and a few dozen will line up to try and shift the subject as you and Mark both tried to do, and most will make attempts to make up for their inability to answer by pouring on juvenile insults that are as unimpressive at his were.
And this might well be true. "Better than the other option" is not the same as "righteous" though. Meanwhile, I invite you to try your own hand at answering any of the seven questions I put forth, all of which are as yet unanswered.
You're blind. Almost NOBODY here - with an obvious exception or so - fails to recognize Evil when we see it. And it's Legion. There is plenty that ALL of us have been critical of Trump for - from his anti-constitutional 'bump stock' idiocy in the first term, and the Zyklon-B and shutdown sellout, to a half-trillion bucks for the AI god, and possible bombing of Iran.
But to ignore OUTRIGHT treason, invasion, the Gang-Rape of the Bill of Rights, the transparent election theft and RAPE (yeah, it's redundant - and rightfully so) of the rule of law, and national economic suicide, is unbelievable.
This nation is still headed over the cliff. It's just not with the 'pedal to the metal' as much now.
Anyone that can make such an asinine claim and ignore Fauci, Obama, Soros, Gates, Schwab, Schumer, Biden, (before he left his brain even) Newsom, and all those who cut the breasts and penises off pre-pubescent children, among DOZENS of others, and not counting 'females,' is honestly, either a moron, or deliberately ignorant (see Hoshea 4:6.)
No, sadly, that's not allowed here any more. But on that score, your ignorance is excusable.
Liar.
This was not asked, but HAS been answered, re:
Choice:
I don't know if he was sincere. Neither does anybody else here - even you, who claims to know my heart, and evidently Trump's as well. You don't even know, much less understand, what I and others have written in this single thread. So I don't trust your 'insight' into this nation's elected president any more than I do Fauci's version of 'science.'
Choice:
That man acknowledged the Creator of the Universe TWICE in his inaugural address. And that was arguably THE biggest change we've seen, so far, even amidst all the other positive moves, from throttling the invasion, to at least trying to shut down USAID et al.
I don't know if he was sincere. Neither does anybody else here - even you, who claims to know my heart, and evidently Trump's as well. You don't even know, much less understand, what I and others have written in this single thread. So I don't trust your 'insight' into this nation's elected president any more than I do Fauci's version of 'science.'
Back to actual fruit:
www.thegatewaypundit.com
What the hell business did Big Brother have in regulating the design of SHOWERS?
(Or, for that matter, cars, toilets, water heaters, guns, or - well, if we read the Constitution - ANYTHING?)
High Flow Shower Heads Are Back! Trump Signs Executive Order to End War on Relaxing Showers - Drops His Best Line Yet! (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
In a bold move, President Trump has reinstated high-flow shower heads, countering previous regulations that limited water pressure. This executive order promises a return to luxurious showering experiences.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
What the hell business did Big Brother have in regulating the design of SHOWERS?
(Or, for that matter, cars, toilets, water heaters, guns, or - well, if we read the Constitution - ANYTHING?)