- Mar 5, 2004
- 17,332
- 6,425
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Should Christians Choose Between the Lesser of Two Evil's in the 2016 Election ?
- Thread starter stephen583
- Start date
Rick Otto
The Dude Abides
- Nov 19, 2002
- 34,112
- 7,406
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
U
That is why the question goes to definition of citizen, which is you're right, not the 17th, but the 14th amendment - uses sleight of hand semantics to create a new class of citizen.
"Important points. Sovereign Americans are above the governments they delegated management powers to. Governments are artificial persons, legal fictions. Governments, as artificial persons, can own property and incur debts on their own, separate from the sovereign people. The personal fortunes of the sovereign people are not to be used to discharge the government's debts. Governments have complete power over their OWN property and subjects. All jurisdiction implies superiority of power. All subjects UNDER the jurisdictional power of a government, are objects of taxation. As the Supreme Court stated above, a free man is subject to human laws only because he binds himself. You, as one of the joint owners of this country, have agreed to abide by certain laws, that you have agreed to. These laws are designated in the Constitution. Remember these concepts. They are critical to the understanding of freedom from taxation.
The Supreme Court of Colorado has ruled:
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Case 380 P.2d 34 (1962) Natural rights - inherent rights and liberties are not the creatures of constitutional provisions either at the national or state level. The inherent human freedoms with which mankind is endowed are "antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
You become subject to the human laws because you bind yourself to them as an artificial person. You waive your sovereign status, to become a subject. How do you do that? By contracting with the government and accepting benefits.The only way the government will contract with you, is if you waive your inalienable rights and agree to be UNDER their jurisdiction.
Before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, Americans were called Citizens (with a capitlal "C") of the united States of America. (American Citizen, or American, for short) If you were born in America, you were born a sovereign with inalienable rights. It was a common understanding among the people. Up until then, slavery was still accepted in America. Slaves were not Citizens, state or national, but were merely considered the personal 'property' of the slave holders. The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, just 3 years before the 14th. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. But that created a new problem. The newly freed slaves were not citizens of any state or country, because they were just property, and property did not have citizenship. To solve the problem, the 14th amendment was passed. This amendment created a new class of citizenship. This new class was legally called: 'United States citizen', (with a small "c"). NOT 'United States of America Citizen', but just 'United States citizen'. Notice that the U.S. citizen is spelled with a lower case 'c'. This is to show a lower class of citizenship. This class of citizen (U.S. citizen) is a privilege granted by the federal government, and not a sovereign inalienable right.
From Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition:
Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;
The Civil War was fought from 1861-1865. The significance of this will be seen later.
Let's see just what the 14th Amendment really does say.
Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment (1868). Section 1. All personsborn or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Notice the wording of this amendment carefully. If they were talking about Citizens of the 50 states, then it would read "and subject to the jurisdiction(s) thereof". Jurisdictions would be plural if it applied to more than one entity. But since it applies only to the United States government, singular, is also shows the jurisdiction to be singular. Jurisdiction, not jurisdictions.
Several other things to notice here. This section 1 of the amendment has two parts.
The first part has to do with the citizenship of 'persons', subjects.
The second part has to do with the states being required to protect the privileges and immunities of the United States citizen. We will look at the first part first."
http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap6.html
US Code is codified law of course, but regardless of how it's organized, the point in focus is who it applies to.
That is why the question goes to definition of citizen, which is you're right, not the 17th, but the 14th amendment - uses sleight of hand semantics to create a new class of citizen.
"Important points. Sovereign Americans are above the governments they delegated management powers to. Governments are artificial persons, legal fictions. Governments, as artificial persons, can own property and incur debts on their own, separate from the sovereign people. The personal fortunes of the sovereign people are not to be used to discharge the government's debts. Governments have complete power over their OWN property and subjects. All jurisdiction implies superiority of power. All subjects UNDER the jurisdictional power of a government, are objects of taxation. As the Supreme Court stated above, a free man is subject to human laws only because he binds himself. You, as one of the joint owners of this country, have agreed to abide by certain laws, that you have agreed to. These laws are designated in the Constitution. Remember these concepts. They are critical to the understanding of freedom from taxation.
The Supreme Court of Colorado has ruled:
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Case 380 P.2d 34 (1962) Natural rights - inherent rights and liberties are not the creatures of constitutional provisions either at the national or state level. The inherent human freedoms with which mankind is endowed are "antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
You become subject to the human laws because you bind yourself to them as an artificial person. You waive your sovereign status, to become a subject. How do you do that? By contracting with the government and accepting benefits.The only way the government will contract with you, is if you waive your inalienable rights and agree to be UNDER their jurisdiction.
Before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, Americans were called Citizens (with a capitlal "C") of the united States of America. (American Citizen, or American, for short) If you were born in America, you were born a sovereign with inalienable rights. It was a common understanding among the people. Up until then, slavery was still accepted in America. Slaves were not Citizens, state or national, but were merely considered the personal 'property' of the slave holders. The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, just 3 years before the 14th. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. But that created a new problem. The newly freed slaves were not citizens of any state or country, because they were just property, and property did not have citizenship. To solve the problem, the 14th amendment was passed. This amendment created a new class of citizenship. This new class was legally called: 'United States citizen', (with a small "c"). NOT 'United States of America Citizen', but just 'United States citizen'. Notice that the U.S. citizen is spelled with a lower case 'c'. This is to show a lower class of citizenship. This class of citizen (U.S. citizen) is a privilege granted by the federal government, and not a sovereign inalienable right.
From Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition:
Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;
The Civil War was fought from 1861-1865. The significance of this will be seen later.
Let's see just what the 14th Amendment really does say.
Constitution of the United States of America
14th Amendment (1868). Section 1. All personsborn or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any States deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Notice the wording of this amendment carefully. If they were talking about Citizens of the 50 states, then it would read "and subject to the jurisdiction(s) thereof". Jurisdictions would be plural if it applied to more than one entity. But since it applies only to the United States government, singular, is also shows the jurisdiction to be singular. Jurisdiction, not jurisdictions.
Several other things to notice here. This section 1 of the amendment has two parts.
The first part has to do with the citizenship of 'persons', subjects.
The second part has to do with the states being required to protect the privileges and immunities of the United States citizen. We will look at the first part first."
http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap6.html
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Ted Cruz was close to getting the nomination away from Trump but fell short in a bitter political drama that left a deep wound in the GOP. At the convention Cruz got up and instead of endorsing the nominee he said, 'did you think I would roll over like a puppy?'. He was booed off the stage.
These political contests can be bitter, those wounds don't heal easily. We have even deadlier problems here as well. The gay rights crowd through legal and political activism has ran the gauntlet of resistance and controversy to attain full acceptance as equally valid with regards to marriage. I don't agree with their lifestyle but I do believe with all my heart that political activism is vital to our democracy. Then in Orlando, a killing spree slaughtered so many defenseless civilians in an act of homicidal lunacy. We watch in horror as a cop shoot an unarmed black man to death, in the wake cops are being killed by snipers wanting retribution.
Al Pacino in Any Given Sunday gives a speech at half time saying, 'we are going to have to come together as a team are we are going to die as individuals. I personally believe we have two great candidates and for the first time in my 50 plus years I'm considering voting Republican. I'm not angry with Hilary Clinton, I believe she would bring a domestic agenda like that of her husband that saw the strongest peace time economy in my lifetime. I have some issues with amnesty being a shameless political ploy and since she is putting that at the top of her agenda I'm leaning toward Trump.
America needs time to heal. No matter how bitter the struggle or long the process there comes a time when we must come together as a nation or we will die as individuals. I remember the LA riots, the seige of Wako and the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma. It was bad for a while but it got better.
There is always going to be something causing struggle and crisis but I think withdrawing from the process is a mistake. Of course it's tough and the political process is often bitter and riddled with contention and controversy. I believe in that process, I believe that we have to struggle with the tough choices lack luster options. It's only when we patiently and persistently work to preserve the fabric of our Democracy that it can get better and we can start to heal the things threatening to tear us apart.
Vote your conscience, or if conviction dictates abstain, that to is a statement. Let's not forget, the heart of the king is in the hands of the Lord. In this world we find no permanent place wandering as strangers and pilgrims. That should not discourage our resolve to heal our wounds and build on what good still remains.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
GOOD! Someone is starting to see... ....
(until we recognize the total corruption of the whole system, .... ... .. .. ..
well,
instead, put all faith in the One True God Himself, Only in Him, ..... the whole heart.... no part of the heart invested in mankind or society or man's ways or the devil's ways)
LIke this lady did > (and so she and her family were saved, when everyone else in the city died)
"8 Before the spies lay down for the night, she went up on the roof 9 and said to them, “I know that the Lord has given you this land and that a great fear of you has fallen on us, so that all who live in this country are melting in fear because of you. 10 We have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea[a] for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. 11 When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the Lord your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below.
12 “Now then, please swear to me by the Lord that you will show kindness to my family, because I have shown kindness to you. Give me a sure sign 13 that you will spare the lives of my father and mother, my brothers and sisters, and all who belong to them—and that you will save us from death.”
14 “Our lives for your lives!” the men assured her. “If you don’t tell what we are doing, we will treat you kindly and faithfully when the Lord gives us the land.”
15 So she let them down by a rope through the window, for the house she lived in was part of the city wall. 16 She said to them, “Go to the hills so the pursuers will not find you. Hide yourselves there three days until they return, and then go on your way.”
17 Now the men had said to her, “This oath you made us swear will not be binding on us 18 unless, when we enter the land, you have tied this scarlet cord in the window through which you let us down, and unless you have brought your father and mother, your brothers and all your family into your house. 19 If any of them go outside your house into the street, their blood will be on their own heads; we will not be responsible. As for those who are in the house with you, their blood will be on our head if a hand is laid on them. 20 But if you tell what we are doing, we will be released from the oath you made us swear.”
21 “Agreed,” she replied. “Let it be as you say.”
So she sent them away, and they departed. And she tied the scarlet cord in the window. "
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Did God or Jesus EVER say that satan doesn't control society and the world overall ?
Basically everyone (as it says in Ephesians, Galatians, Revelation, et al)
who is not redeemed.
Upvote
0
- Jun 13, 2002
- 21,665
- 1,466
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
I totally understand the frustration.
I believe not voting at all though is giving it to the worse of the two evils and I would legitimately have no complaint since I did not vote 
In America we have the freedom to vote, we're not given a dictator (although the current pres seems to be becoming one) and we're not given a king (the current pres seems to think he's one ) So what's a God-fearing believer to do? Vote! And at least let your voice be heard. Even though it may not change. I believe God is in control no matter what it looks like. He promises to protect His own.
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
And many millions of believers have been outright murdered in the last 50 years or so.
Does anyone know how you voted ever ? Did anyone expect it to make a difference ?
If it made a difference, why has wickedness increased every year ?
(God NEVER said vote for an evil man, in a wicked system, that doesn't even COUNT the votes (they admitted this year again, the one put in office is decided BEFORE the voting even happens, and no matter who votes for who)... )
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 2, 2015
- 11,556
- 5,728
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
And, who controls them? God uses His creation for His purposes.
Upvote
0
Rescued One
...yet not I, but the grace of God that is with me
- Dec 12, 2002
- 35,523
- 6,403
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
I HATE the choices we are being given this year. In 2012 I didn't vote; I don't know if that was right or wrong. I agree with everything that SpiritPsalmist said. Pray for our country and the choices that we make. Who do we want to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court?
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” ― Edmund Burke.
Upvote
0
As I see it this presidential election is the most vital election that we will EVER have the opportunity to vote in. This is not an exaggerated statement. The SINGLE most crucial issue to be decided by this election is that of what disposition the future supreme court will be. What the future of America can & will be, this hinges on this more than any other isolated reality.
When I consider an issue of contention I seek for points of simplicity. I also try to frame my myriad of thought to fit under an overarching principle. Can it reasonably be questioned if the lesser of two evils can also be debated as to which of the two candidates would allow for & actually promote the greater good? As I see this question (who would allow for & promote the greater good) to be a true corollary this is how I will answer the question of the lesser of the evils.
One thing will happen - a president WILL be elected. If it is the greater of the two evils - you will assuredly rue the day you neglected to be counted. This is anything but hot air. I would even go so far as to say that this is a prophetic word to those who excuse themselves from voting. All non-voters WILL be culpable for their part in being responsible if the greater evil (God forbid) wins.
When obama won his second term I despaired. I understood why he won the first time. But, to be re-elected - this was a wake up call to me. It was frightfully obvious as to how uneducated of the issues, undiscerning of what would come to be, & of how unanalytical our peoples were. This did not bode well for the future of this blessed nation.
There is something that always amazed (& continues to distress) me. It is this. The democrats have always promised the minority communities arpege - but in the end have only given them but fetid toilet water. How they (the democrats) could perpetrate this fraud election after election after election always has mystified me. I fail to see any “coming to be” of their vacuous promises. But yet, they continue to do this with great success! They demagogue their opponents with trite phraseologies which few bother to question the veracity of. Where do you hear it touted that lincoln was the first REPUBLICAN president? When has it last been shouted that it was REPUBLICANS that fought for the emancipation of the slaves?
ARTICLE - In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party meet to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery into the western territories. The Whig Party, which was formed in 1834 to oppose the “tyranny” of President Andrew Jackson, had shown itself incapable of coping with the national crisis over slavery.
With the successful introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854, an act that dissolved the terms of the Missouri Compromise and allowed slave or free status to be decided in the territories by popular sovereignty, the Whigs disintegrated. By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.
The Republicans rapidly gained supporters in the North, and in 1856 their first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, won 11 of the 16 Northern states. By 1860, the majority of the Southern slave states were publicly threatening secession if the Republicans won the presidency. In November 1860, REPUBLICAN Abraham Lincoln was elected president over a divided Democratic Party, and six weeks later South Carolina formally seceded from the Union.
The Civil War firmly identified the Republican Party as the party of the victorious North, and after the war the Republican-dominated Congress forced a “Radical Reconstruction” policy on the South, which saw the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution and the granting of equal rights to all Southern citizens.
ARTICLE - Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to
maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Perhaps this is one reason they greatly neglect to teach American history in schools today. As a quite interesting aside, consider the following two paragraphs from an ARTICLE - “Harvard University does not require history majors to take a course in U.S. history. Nor do Georgetown University, the University of Maryland and many other highly regarded schools.
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni says that’s a problem. The council, based in Washington, recently surveyed the requirements for history majors at top colleges and universities and concluded that too many give short shrift to the United States.”
A simple comparison of some of the basic positions of the two candidates speaks eloquently to how a reasonable choice can be made.
1) With hillary there will be supreme court nominations who are “progressive liberals.” With donald there will be constitutional conservatives nominated.
2) With hillary there will be absolute freedom to abortion on demand & all the associated evils that go with this. With donald current strictures will be upheld & maybe even more limitations imposed depending on what comes before a future supreme court with his appointees.
3) With hillary our nation will be basically without borders. With donald we will have borders & secure them as best we can.
4) With hillary there has been extremely little done & shown (at best) to suggest she wants America to be a society where law rules supreme. With donald we hear his championing of law & order & the consequent support of some very important police unions.
5) With hillary there will be higher taxes. With donald taxes will be lowered.
6) With hillary there will NOT be energy independence. With donald we will develop & use all of our natural resources responsibly.
7) With hillary huge sums from our taxes will be apportioned to support all manner of “rights” for the illegal criminals in this nation. With donald this will be done away with as expediencies permit.
ARTICLE - Conservative candidate Donald Trump didn’t become a billionaire by accident. He is smart and savvy, which is why he released a brilliant plan to secure the border and send illegal immigrants home.
He knows the endless expenses involved with having tens of millions of lawbreakers sneaking into this country. And while the liberal media has been pushing back worried about the cost of deportation, a study proves Donald Trump is RIGHT about illegal aliens!
As Breitbart.com reminds us, the Heritage Foundation recently released a study by Robert Rector which shows that deporting illegals saves American taxpayers $700,000 or more for each family!
That’s because illegal aliens use many social services, are given free housing, are given food stamps, have their health care paid for, and their children are given education. This cost is roughly $113 billion, a net loss to the economy of approximately $100 billion.
In contrast, deportation is comparatively cheaper. Deportation alone would help save programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which are on the verge of collapse. Plus, a President Trump would support the enforcement of current immigration laws and E-verify, as studies have shown that many illegals will return voluntarily. We already saw this happen after Arizona passed strict immigration rules.
As Heritage’s Robert Rector explained: The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution… Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a ‘fiscal surplus’ that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society.
Therefore, deportation will be a net benefit to taxpayers. Not only would American taxpayer be financial, but there would be a reduction of crime and issues involving the spreading of disease.
Donald Trump is right, and the well-funded business lobbyists are wrong.
So, what do we see as we consider just these seven simple differences? There is a vast gap between the positions of hillary & donald. Hillary will in every way, shape & form curtail our freedoms as given us under the constitution. Religious liberty & gun rights are in severe danger with her. Hillary will lead our nation into further financial folly & loss. Hillary will bring untold ruin to our pocketbooks, safety & morality. It is absolute absurdity to vote for her. But, to those who refuse to vote for donald for WHATEVER reason - you WILL BE CULPABLE for the consequences of a hillary presidency. An appeal to “conscience,” or ANY other excuse as to why you will not vote - this avails you of no forgiveness what for hillary would bring.
When I consider an issue of contention I seek for points of simplicity. I also try to frame my myriad of thought to fit under an overarching principle. Can it reasonably be questioned if the lesser of two evils can also be debated as to which of the two candidates would allow for & actually promote the greater good? As I see this question (who would allow for & promote the greater good) to be a true corollary this is how I will answer the question of the lesser of the evils.
One thing will happen - a president WILL be elected. If it is the greater of the two evils - you will assuredly rue the day you neglected to be counted. This is anything but hot air. I would even go so far as to say that this is a prophetic word to those who excuse themselves from voting. All non-voters WILL be culpable for their part in being responsible if the greater evil (God forbid) wins.
When obama won his second term I despaired. I understood why he won the first time. But, to be re-elected - this was a wake up call to me. It was frightfully obvious as to how uneducated of the issues, undiscerning of what would come to be, & of how unanalytical our peoples were. This did not bode well for the future of this blessed nation.
There is something that always amazed (& continues to distress) me. It is this. The democrats have always promised the minority communities arpege - but in the end have only given them but fetid toilet water. How they (the democrats) could perpetrate this fraud election after election after election always has mystified me. I fail to see any “coming to be” of their vacuous promises. But yet, they continue to do this with great success! They demagogue their opponents with trite phraseologies which few bother to question the veracity of. Where do you hear it touted that lincoln was the first REPUBLICAN president? When has it last been shouted that it was REPUBLICANS that fought for the emancipation of the slaves?
ARTICLE - In Ripon, Wisconsin, former members of the Whig Party meet to establish a new party to oppose the spread of slavery into the western territories. The Whig Party, which was formed in 1834 to oppose the “tyranny” of President Andrew Jackson, had shown itself incapable of coping with the national crisis over slavery.
With the successful introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill of 1854, an act that dissolved the terms of the Missouri Compromise and allowed slave or free status to be decided in the territories by popular sovereignty, the Whigs disintegrated. By February 1854, anti-slavery Whigs had begun meeting in the upper midwestern states to discuss the formation of a new party. One such meeting, in Wisconsin on March 20, 1854, is generally remembered as the founding meeting of the Republican Party.
The Republicans rapidly gained supporters in the North, and in 1856 their first presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, won 11 of the 16 Northern states. By 1860, the majority of the Southern slave states were publicly threatening secession if the Republicans won the presidency. In November 1860, REPUBLICAN Abraham Lincoln was elected president over a divided Democratic Party, and six weeks later South Carolina formally seceded from the Union.
The Civil War firmly identified the Republican Party as the party of the victorious North, and after the war the Republican-dominated Congress forced a “Radical Reconstruction” policy on the South, which saw the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution and the granting of equal rights to all Southern citizens.
ARTICLE - Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to
maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.
Perhaps this is one reason they greatly neglect to teach American history in schools today. As a quite interesting aside, consider the following two paragraphs from an ARTICLE - “Harvard University does not require history majors to take a course in U.S. history. Nor do Georgetown University, the University of Maryland and many other highly regarded schools.
The American Council of Trustees and Alumni says that’s a problem. The council, based in Washington, recently surveyed the requirements for history majors at top colleges and universities and concluded that too many give short shrift to the United States.”
A simple comparison of some of the basic positions of the two candidates speaks eloquently to how a reasonable choice can be made.
1) With hillary there will be supreme court nominations who are “progressive liberals.” With donald there will be constitutional conservatives nominated.
2) With hillary there will be absolute freedom to abortion on demand & all the associated evils that go with this. With donald current strictures will be upheld & maybe even more limitations imposed depending on what comes before a future supreme court with his appointees.
3) With hillary our nation will be basically without borders. With donald we will have borders & secure them as best we can.
4) With hillary there has been extremely little done & shown (at best) to suggest she wants America to be a society where law rules supreme. With donald we hear his championing of law & order & the consequent support of some very important police unions.
5) With hillary there will be higher taxes. With donald taxes will be lowered.
6) With hillary there will NOT be energy independence. With donald we will develop & use all of our natural resources responsibly.
7) With hillary huge sums from our taxes will be apportioned to support all manner of “rights” for the illegal criminals in this nation. With donald this will be done away with as expediencies permit.
ARTICLE - Conservative candidate Donald Trump didn’t become a billionaire by accident. He is smart and savvy, which is why he released a brilliant plan to secure the border and send illegal immigrants home.
He knows the endless expenses involved with having tens of millions of lawbreakers sneaking into this country. And while the liberal media has been pushing back worried about the cost of deportation, a study proves Donald Trump is RIGHT about illegal aliens!
As Breitbart.com reminds us, the Heritage Foundation recently released a study by Robert Rector which shows that deporting illegals saves American taxpayers $700,000 or more for each family!
That’s because illegal aliens use many social services, are given free housing, are given food stamps, have their health care paid for, and their children are given education. This cost is roughly $113 billion, a net loss to the economy of approximately $100 billion.
In contrast, deportation is comparatively cheaper. Deportation alone would help save programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which are on the verge of collapse. Plus, a President Trump would support the enforcement of current immigration laws and E-verify, as studies have shown that many illegals will return voluntarily. We already saw this happen after Arizona passed strict immigration rules.
As Heritage’s Robert Rector explained: The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution… Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a ‘fiscal surplus’ that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society.
Therefore, deportation will be a net benefit to taxpayers. Not only would American taxpayer be financial, but there would be a reduction of crime and issues involving the spreading of disease.
Donald Trump is right, and the well-funded business lobbyists are wrong.
So, what do we see as we consider just these seven simple differences? There is a vast gap between the positions of hillary & donald. Hillary will in every way, shape & form curtail our freedoms as given us under the constitution. Religious liberty & gun rights are in severe danger with her. Hillary will lead our nation into further financial folly & loss. Hillary will bring untold ruin to our pocketbooks, safety & morality. It is absolute absurdity to vote for her. But, to those who refuse to vote for donald for WHATEVER reason - you WILL BE CULPABLE for the consequences of a hillary presidency. An appeal to “conscience,” or ANY other excuse as to why you will not vote - this avails you of no forgiveness what for hillary would bring.
Upvote
0
SepiaAndDust
There's a FISH in the percolator
I can't vote for Trump because I'll be voting for Hillary. I don't need your forgiveness.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 26, 2011
- 13,291
- 2,879
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I am not here to argue, I am just here to share how I feel and have felt. Sadly, I am not currently living in the states or I would sure be voting, my vote would be for Trump/Pence, no doubt about it. The very fact that he picked Mike Pence as his VP is a sign he does care and does have morals. All of us are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, but, that does not make us rotten, evil folk. Also, the way he raised his children, I watched them online via Youtube, they spoke with such calm respect, and you just can not hide how a child is raised, he did that right as well. NO, to me, he is the ONLY one that can get our country out of the mess it is in.
Remember, NOT voting is voting, and it will be for Hilary. Now, there IS an evil person, do you want her in? If so, then by all means don't vote at all, but don't complain when she gets in and ruins what is left of our wonderful country.
God bless America and God bless Trump and Pence.
Oh, and if you want to know the whole truth, listen to Sean Hannity, he tells it like it is.
God bless everyone here.
Remember, NOT voting is voting, and it will be for Hilary. Now, there IS an evil person, do you want her in? If so, then by all means don't vote at all, but don't complain when she gets in and ruins what is left of our wonderful country.
God bless America and God bless Trump and Pence.
Oh, and if you want to know the whole truth, listen to Sean Hannity, he tells it like it is.
God bless everyone here.
Upvote
0
I am not American but I think Christians should vote at their elections. We have just had an election in Australia where the result is one party on with one seat. As voting is compulsory we had to choose the lesser evil .No matter what you think of the candidates you should vote for the lesser evil.
Upvote
0
yeshuaslavejeff
simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Even just knowing the Bible has led many to never even consider voting - it's not there.
Praying and speaking out openly about the things God says to speak out about is what's important.
Remember voting hasn't worked in the united states for about 100 years.
(just look around, what's happened BECAUSE of the deception of voting)
Jesus NEVER said to do that.
Instead, He said the Father in Heaven raises up who HE WANTS, and brings down who HE WANTS TO BRING DOWN.
(just like pharaoh and so forth ALL THROUGH SCRIPTURE).
(remember?)
i.e. as Jesus says, DO what the Father says to do.
Not what the world says is good to do. (Many were obviously or probably taught as children and growing up "how good" voting and democracy is.)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
