It's my hope that the evidence will be presented in court, and when the "jury" ignores it, or the judge over-rules it, or tosses it but the American people see it... when GEOTUS goes to jail and over half the country knows it's injustice while the rest all cry tears of joy: that's the time for the WH military to show up at the jail and take charge. That's when the military trials can take place. Where more evidence can be shown. The real Cabal dark evidence and America can wake up en masse. Q created rumors. Jan is leaving bread crumbs for those asleep to follow, but God knows when the real evidence will be presented.
At least that's the movie I would right.
It was fulfilled in the book of Maccabees by Antiochus IV. It's very convenient for you to leave out the first 12 verses of the prophesy which quite obviously were fulfilled by Alexander the great and Antiochus IV. It's been obvious and picked apart for 2000 years. The date when the temple was cleansed is well established as December 25, 165 B.C. If we count back 2,300 days from then, we come to the year when Antiochus Epiphanes began his persecution in earnest (171 B.C.).
Your style of prophetic reading is not new. It was done my William Miller in 1844 to predict the return of Christ and tragically this lead to the creation of Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Novel interpretation is dangerous and anyone reading this and considering it should pick up a church history book instead and learn what Christians have been teaching for the past 2000 years. I'm not saying everyone in the past is correct, but it's important to know what the majority opinions have been going back to the Fathers.
Because anonymity allows people to say things that aren't true without repercussions. Or, it allows people to say the darkest part of their sinful heart without risking their reputation. One suggestion I've seen him make is to have two comments sections: one for real and verified people, and a second that is for anonymous persons (and bots). That way there is no censorship, but you would have to choose to click on the second string anon board to see it (and the verified board would essentially be promoted).
I like this idea. We have all seen the filth on 4chan, the wild west of anonymity. We should have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean there should be no risk in speech. Think of those fake Patriot Front protestors. They ran like little bitches once their masks were torn off.
One thing the religious right needs in America is to be more bold in their speech and stand up to the left. It's a risk to get doxed. But that's why we need the fear of God in anyone that would risk stepping on our property.
The KJV was created to get rid of the margin notes in the Geneva Bible (they were not favorable to kingly authority). Both KJV and Geneva were over 80% from Tyndale.
On a side note, my dad crossed out the name James in his Bible's forward and wrote "faggot" in it's place. God rest his soul, he was based.
The use of the White House is a benefit provided to the President of the United States for his personal use outside of his working time there. Does the President pay income tax on the private use of this benefit? I bet there is some specific law excepting it... but on face value this is exactly the same crime that Weisselberg is serving time for.
The only thing I would add to his speech is that based on his premises about poor people in the world, the absolute fastest way for us to help the planet and reduce suffering is to setup systems that enable the poorest people in the world to get out of poverty as fast as possible. The primary system that does this is capitalism. The second most important is a constitutional republic (although even this isn't necessary).
Show proof of any order from Hitler, Himmler or any other high ranking official to anyone to execute Jews in mass. There were multiple concentration camps. We have thousands of Nazi documents. Where is a shred of evidence of this plan of extermination. Where are the autopsies proving death by zyklon B? Where is the proof of this six million number? We're there 6 million Jews to start with in German occupied territories?
The cherry on top of all the lack of evidence are the laws and outrage towards anyone who dares to say anything against the official narrative. Revisionists don't praise Nazis or deny their evil, they only look for what really happened.
12 But above all things. It has been a common vice almost in all ages, to swear lightly and inconsiderately. For so bad is our nature that we do not consider what an atrocious crime it is to profane the name of God. For though the Lord strictly commands us to reverence his name, yet men devise various subterfuges, and think that they can swear with impunity. They imagine, then, that there is no evil, provided they do not openly mention the name of God; and this is an old gloss. So the Jews, when they swore by heaven or earth, thought that they did not profane God's name, because they did not mention it. But while men seek to be ingenious in dissembling with God, they delude themselves with the most frivolous evasions.
It was a vain excuse of this kind that Christ condemned in Matthew 5:34. James, now subscribing to the decree of his master, commands us to abstain from these indirect forms of swearing: for whosoever swears in vain and on frivolous occasions, profanes God's name, whatever form he may give to his words. Then the meaning is, that it is not more lawful to swear by heaven or by the earth, than openly by the name of God. The reason is mentioned by Christ -- because the glory of God is everywhere inscribed, and everywhere shines forth. Nay, men take the words, heaven and earth, in their oaths, in no other sense and for no other purpose, than if they named God himself; for by thus speaking they only designate the Worker by his works.
But he says, above all things; because the profanation of God's name is not a slight offense. The Anabaptists, building on this passage, condemn all oaths, but they only shew their ignorance. For James does not speak of oaths in general, nor does Christ in the passage to which I have referred; but both condemn that evasion which had been devised, when men took the liberty to swear without expressing the name of God, which was a liberty repugnant to the prohibition of the law.
And this is what the words clearly mean, Neither by heaven, neither by the earth. For, if the question had been as to oaths in themselves, to what purpose were these forms mentioned? It then appears evident that both by Christ and by James the puerile astuteness of those is reproved who taught that they could swear with impunity, provided they adopted some circuitous expressions. That we may, then, understand the meaning of James, we must understand first the precept of the law, "Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain." It hence appears clear, that there is a right and lawful use of God's name. Now, James condemns those who did not indeed dare in a direct way to profane God's name, but endeavored to evade the profanation which the law condemns, by circumlocutions.
But let your yea be yea. He brings the best remedy to correct the vice which he condemns, that is, that they were habitually to keep themselves to truth and faithfulness in all their sayings. For whence is the wicked habit of swearing, except that such is the falsehood of men, that their words alone are not believed? For, if they observed faithfulness, as they ought, in their words, there would have been no necessity of so many superfluous oaths. As, then, the perfidy or levity of men is the fountain from which the vice of swearing flows, in order to take away the vice, James teaches us that the fountain ought to be removed; for the right way of healing is to begin with the cause of illness.
God himself takes an oath by his own name, and the Torah speaks many times to people taking proper oaths in God's name. Take a step back and look at God's Word on the whole and don't take one verse out of context to justify a simple and negligent view that there is no proper place for swearing by God's name. Oaths have place in the law and properly bind us in our marriages and most importantly, bind our faith that we might be reminded of the severe penalty from God for breaking our oaths in His name.
He's saying the Federal Reserve chairman is announcing an interest rate hike and that is somehow related to Putin postponing a speech which indicates a backchannel peace deal?
Except Powell is suspected of announcing a 100 basis point (1%) raise over the next three months.
This world is suffering. It's a sin soaked, sin polluted world. Sin touches and taints every single thing. Some things more than others. Post-Modernism has stripped all meaning from suffering and offers no answers to people (especially young ones) who are told indirectly that they are responsible for creating their own meaning and purpose for their lives. Well good luck. Just try to validate your suffering let alone the suffering of the world with your own thoughts and purposes. It's impossible. This young lady was suffering and searching for something to fix her. It's the same as being offered the fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil by the serpent. Adam and Eve rejected God's Word (don't eat the fruit), for their own guess at knowledge and wisdom (the fruit will make you wise). This poor girl took the fruit offered to her and destroyed her mind for nearly a decade and her body for life.
This is why Christian ministry is so important to reach young people. God's Word offers purpose and validation for suffering. This girl needed to hear that God knows she is suffering and her suffering is shared by the world and it's both her fault for her personal sin, and it's the world's fault for it's rebellion. God's power is transformational and he gives greatly to those who ask. She needed to hear that Jesus suffered to His death so that her suffering would have purpose. That she could talk to God and be comforted by his Spirit and His church. Now I pray she can find God and walk through His door and join his kingdom because without that, she will struggle greatly to find purpose in her de-transition. May God have mercy on her soul.
Think of it like this. Blacks make up a little over 10% of the population, but commit over 50% of the homicides. Their victims are mostly black. That is a very small percentage of the country killing themselves more than anyone else. No racial group will benefit more from a hard stance on crime than blacks. They are losing the most, so have the most to gain from violent criminals being locked up for good (or executed).
That nice family at the end is who we are most likely protecting by stopping crime.
It isn't mainstream and it never will be.
Oh, it could be. I'd argue we are close right now in America. Ever read brave new world? Everyone had a right to each other's bodies. That's where we are headed with this oppressor/oppressed bullshit. Remember Sodom? Those men believed they had a right to the bodies of the visitors. In ancient Rome they practiced pederasty in which older men had a right to young boy's bodies. It has happened before and can happen again. This is what validating "minor attracted persons" is all about. Minors can't consent. They want a right to children's bodies.
Liberalism had made tolerance of the "different" a law of the land. Sin is deserving of shame. People should be ashamed of their sin. We are past a point of civil penalties for homosexual acts, but we could get to a place of rarity an obscurity to make civil penalties common place again.
God prescribed the death penalty for adultery, which is fine when it's super rare across your culture, but if it's common place, that simply isn't feasible. The death penalty is still accepted in places across America for murder, but it will take awhile for people to back the death penalty for doctors that perform abortions. The overturning of Roe is too new.
It took time for the gay agenda to get as far as it has, and as the perversions intensify, so too does the backlash. But it will take time and revival to codify God's sexually laws back to the civil sphere.
Just looking into it a little bit, it would seem Obama undid an executive order Bush put into place that was more restrictive on accessing former presidents' records. I don't see how it sealed this records to a further extent. A lot of people during Bush disagreed with his version of the presidential records executive order and tried to reverse it but failed. Obama returned the rules to what Reagan's version said.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if a meme is mistaken, even about Obama, someone should say something.