What is the problem of proving voter fraud? We have to have people running our voting systems who are willing to look for it.
Consider the irony. What’s the big news? Democrats, without any evidence, claim Russia fixed the presidential election. Yet Democrats are unwilling to: ensure that only citizens can register to vote, clean up the voter registration rolls, or require proof of identity when people vote. No one except the Russians are trying to cheat in our elections?
What are Democrats doing to our voter registration and vote tallying systems? They are working to eliminate any effort to verify people vote honestly. Instead the are diligently working to make it as easy and as convenient as possible to register and to vote. How do we know someone is who they say they are when they register to vote? Who cares? Isn’t everyone honest? Are you who you say you are when you vote? Who cares? Isn’t everyone honest?
If we don’t even look for cheating, we will not find it. It is cinch the cheaters will not inform on themselves.
Is there evidence of fraud? Yes, but you won’t find much of it in the Modern Liberal news media. So you have to dig deeply for the evidence, but your can find examples.
Really, most of the evidence is in our local news. That’s why Delegate Rob Bell sent out this email in November 2016.
Still don’t believe in voter fraud?
In Alexandria, a campaign worker for a Democratic-aligned group was arrested and charged for registering fictitious voters.
In Newport News, a man received a voter registration at his address, but with a different name. He brought it to prosecutors, who identified 32 others cases where this may have happened.
In Harrisonburg, a canvasser working for a group organized by a local Democrat was caught after attempting to register 19 dead Virginians.
Honest elections should be a priority for everyone. But Mark Herring is still refusing to defend Virginia’s photo ID law in court. And Terry McAuliffe vetoed photo ID requirements for absentee ballotsand a second bill to help keep non-citizens off Virginia’s voter rolls. Democratic leaders are fighting our commonsense efforts to stop voter fraud in the first place.
After the last few weeks, not even Democrats can credibly argue that voter fraud doesn’t exist.
If you have evidence of voter fraud, be sure to report it to authorities. And as we try to move forward, we need your help. If you haven’t already, join the fight — sign the online petition by clicking here.
Delegate Rob Bell
Republican Candidate for Attorney General
What will you find easily find online when you google voter fraud evidence. To prevent a proper investigation, the largely Liberal News media is ridiculing reports of voter fraud. This behavior looks much like the Wizard in the “Wizard of Oz” telling Dorothy not to look behind the curtain. The only proper description for it is suspiciously weird. Why wouldn’t the news media love to see such an investigation? If nothing is found, then the president they hate looks bad. If something is found, it makes for fascinating news. They cannot lose — unless they care more about getting Democrats elected than what is good for the country.
Do I hate the US Catholic Bishops? No. Do I think they are especially bad people? No. Nevertheless, I think their stance on immigration is stupidly immoral. What is their stance? See for yourself: Catholic Church’s Position on Immigration Reform.
How did I come across the statement the US Catholic Bishops made on immigration. A commenter (here) cited them as some kind of authority and posted a link. I replied (here). Here is the gist of what I said.
The Democratic Party advocates open borders; it just calls it something else. You pointed to a naive front group like the US Catholic Bishops. At the same time those bishops are suppose to be fighting against the killing of babies, abortion, they are working to guarantee Democrat victories at the polls. I don’t have to mock the authority of those men. They do it themselves.
What the US Catholic Bishops want is effectively a second immigration amnesty. SECOND immigration amnesty. We need a second one because the last one worked so well? For whom?
We have always had controlled immigration into this country. Now it is far more difficult. What is different now? People can travel more easily, of course, but what is crucial is our health, education, and welfare programs. Need I say the obvious? Democrats are eager to use these programs to buy the votes of gullible immigrants. (from here)
Disgusted, I commented that too. Here is the gist of what I said in my first comment.
What do we call people who substitute weeping emotion for rational thought? Helen Thomas, a White House reporter, ironically invented the expression when she told us how much her heart bleeds.
It is an unfortunate fact of life, but lots of clerics are bleeding hearts. Europe is being overrun by people who do not have any use for democracy. Once their government collapses, where are the Europeans supposed to go? Here? Why would want more brainless fools? Don’t we have enough already?
Seriously, when you play chess, to win you have to think 4 – 5 moves ahead. If we accept millions of refugees, I agree that solves the immediate problem. We have already put who even knows how many such people on welfare, and we are still not bankrupt. Just the same, if we keep accepting refugees and putting them on welfare, the consequences are readily predictable. The refugees will vote Democrat. That’s why the Democrats want them.
In addition, because our taxes are already out of sight because of expensive heath, education, and welfare programs, absorbing endless refugees will just cause our economy will fold up and close shop. We will also become a multilingual nation, a tower of Babel (That’s why the European Union never had a chance.). The collapse will be complete when our government becomes tyrannical. That is the only way it will be able to maintain order. If you have any doubts about the tyrannical part, consider all the disruptions the Democrats are causing Trump. The jackasses are deliberately trying to make the country ungovernable, and they think that is a smart move. The Nazis did the same sort of thing to the Weimar Republic.
🙄 (from here)
The US Catholic Bishops are ignoring the teachings of the Bible. What is our basic problem? We don’t love each other enough, right? Does putting on a big show that supposedly shows how much we care solve that problem? No. Does overloading our health, education, and welfare systems solve that problem? No. Does electing a bunch of Democrats solve that problem? No. Does creating a situation that is guaranteed to foment immense social strife solve that problem? No.
Here is the other comment I left behind.
Hypocrites, people who only pretend to be highly and even perfectly moral, cannot make a constitutional republic work. The reason is simple enough. They won’t truly abide by the constitution. They will only make the pretense that that is what they are doing. Meanwhile, they will accuse their opponents of every damned thing they can imagine.
Still, the proof of their duplicity comes from their own lips. It is they, to excuse their lies, who call the Constitution a “living document”. With those two words they render the Constitution meaningless, and they think themselves clever. Yet with those two words they also expose the proof of all their own lies. (from here)
The modern Democratic Party and many in the Republican Party engage in legalism. Like the Pharisees of old, they supposedly uphold a complex legalistic code. This code they tell us is quite honorable, but unlike the nonsense the Pharisees taught their lie can be easily seen. Their code is living; it conforms to the politics of the moment. As they say, IT IS ALIVE! It is in truth a dishonorable monstrosity.
Should we help refugees from war zones? Of course, we should, but destroying our own culture and almost deliberately sowing social strife into our society will not help anyone. It just spreads the problems the refugees are trying to flee. Don’t we already have enough trouble getting along with each other? Isn’t adding bunches and bunches of poorly educated refugees, many accustomed to violence, like adding fuel to a fire?
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; (from here)
Therefore, the only question before a court should be whether Congress has authorized the president to deny restrict travel to our nation from nations that are deemed threats. In fact, since the president’s primary job is commander-in-chief, doesn’t he have that responsibility already?
Foreigners have 5th Amendment rights. Effectively, using such logic, foreigners have the right to enter the United States any time they want to do so. We may as well call them citizens.
Foreigners have 1st Amendment rights. Does that mean foreigners have freedom of assembly in the United States. Why don’t we just lay out the welcome mat for foreign armies? Congress has in the past favored immigration from certain nations over others. Why? We shared a similar cultural heritage, including religious heritage. Commonsense, now seemingly in short supply, dictates that immigration from such nations would be less disruptive.
So, do foreigners, foreigners who are not even in our country, have rights under our Constitution? Well, the Framers made it explicitly clear whose rights they wrote OUR Constitution to protect. See the Preamble at the beginning of this post.
This is not just bad law. It is insane. Those judges need to be removed from the bench. This decision is legal malpractice. If the judges on the Supreme Court don’t have enough good sense to overturn such blatant BS, God help us. Hopefully, our new Attorney General will take the case over and devise a successful strategy.
Today Empress Hillary Clinton issued an executive order directing her State Department to deny Christians entry into the dominions of the New World Empire. Sources say the application of a religious provocateur widely known as Apostle Paul for a visa to enter her domain prompted her to issue her executive order. The State Department cited the apostle’s writings as grounds for the denial. The apostle is a high-ranking leader of a radical atheist cult that denounces the worship of the gods, discriminates against gays, denies women equal rights, and opposes infanticide for birth control.
The Apostle Paul, previously known as Saul of Tarsus, is a follower of the founder of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth. Pontius Pilate, Prefect of the Roman province of Judaea ordered Jesus crucified on March 29, 1991. Christians claimed that Jesus rose from the dead on March 31, 1991. Christians cite his supposed resurrection as proof Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Sensibly calling that claim blasphemy Paul joined with those Jews that both Jewish and Roman authorities directed to stamp out the seditious cult.
After relentlessly prosecuting Christians for several years, Paul claims he experienced a vision while traveling to Damascus, Syria. Incredibly, Paul says he saw Jesus in this vision. Immediately afterwards Paul says he spent three years in the Arabian desert. What he did there is unknown, but he apparently spent that time undergoing indoctrination in the Christian ideology.
Since his desert experience Paul has preached the seditious teachings of Jesus throughout southern Europe. Paul has mislead thousands of previously loyal citizens to adopt his atheistic Christian beliefs.
Because rumors abound that Christians drink human blood and eat human flesh, authorities have repeatedly investigated Christian churches for engaging unauthorized human sacrifices. Thus far authorities have not confirmed any of these rumors. Nevertheless, Christians make no secret of their refusal to worship the empress and the Roman gods, their opposition to the gay lifestyle and pederasty, and their insistence all women should dress and behave modestly, including those engaged in temple worship. Because of its implications for population control, the empress is especially concerned by their opposition to infanticide for birth control. She considers this a direct threat to the stability of the empire. Therefore, the empress issued her executive order.
When we think of being charitable to our neighbor, most Christians do in fact think of The Parable of the Good Samaritan. What is important is that when we read this parable we suddenly realize that everyone is our neighbor. There is no one God does not expect us to love.
25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?”
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’ and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’”
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion.34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.35 On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
Why a good Samaritan? The Jews and the Samaritans were notorious for detesting each other. The Jews still attempted keep the law, but the Samaritans had fallen away and intermarried with non-Jews. Thus, Jesus contrasted the behavior of a couple of Jews who knew the law and disobeyed with a Samaritan whose conscience guided him to obey the law.
So what is the lesson of the parable? When we look around the world, we see seeming endless numbers of people suffering. What does this parable tell us to do about that? Well, if we draw the wrong conclusion from The Parable of the Good Samaritan, we can become hopeless. What can we do? How are we suppose to love all the people in the world as we love our self? That’s not possible. Which of us can solve all of our own problems? How are we suppose to relieve the entire world of all its suffering? We cannot.
With dreams of Utopia and out of guilt, many of us call upon government to end human suffering. These think of the immense power of large numbers of people working together. They think that if we can just get everyone to work together we can solve all the world’s problems. That is, for the sake of fulfilling a dream they deify (or make an idol of) the government. That misses the point of the parable. With this parable, Jesus calls upon each of us, not bureaucrats in some government, to care about each other. When the good Samaritan came across someone in trouble, he gave from his own resources what help he could. Does anyone actually think God will admit us into heaven just because we paid our taxes?
So it is the early church organized charities. Here are some examples.
Act 6:1-7 describes the organization of the first charity to help widows.
2 Corinthians 8-9 speaks of a collection for needy Christians in Jerusalem and exhorts the brethren to be cheerful givers.
1 Timothy 5:3-16 provides the guidance the Apostle Paul gave a protegé, Timothy, as to how a church should support needy widows.
Consider again the lawyer’s question. “Who is my neighbor?” Does it make a difference that the man the good Samaritan helped was a stranger? Yes. So long as we remain in this life Jesus does not expect us to treat our husbands, our wives, our children, our relatives, our friends, and members of our community the same way we treat complete and total strangers. That was the amazing thing about the good Samaritan. He actually helped a stranger.
What We Owe The Stranger
Consider that good Samaritan. He had other business to attend to. So he did not stay with the injured man. Instead, he gave the innkeeper two denarii and left the stranger he had helped in someone else’s care. The good Samaritan had other obligations that had a higher priority than the personal care of a stranger. Still, he did what he could.
Because we are all the image bearers of our Creator in one sense we are all neighbors. Nevertheless, we each have greater obligations to family, friends, and the people in our community than we do to strangers. Since the word stranger occurs over a 100 times in the NKJV, we can safely say the Bible makes a clear distinction.
33 ‘And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. 34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
That’s why the Bible calls upon us to allow the stranger who dwells among us to become one of us. Moreover, the Bible reminds us with some irony, to take care of our own.
35 ‘If one of your brethren becomes poor, and falls into poverty among you, then you shall help him, like a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with you. 36 Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. 37 You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. 38 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to give you the land of Canaan and to be your God.
Note, however, that when a stranger lived among the Jews, the Jews expected that stranger to conform to their customs. So over time that stranger became Jewish or he had to leave.
Strangers might receive sympathy, but they were not trusted.
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
How much should we sacrifice to help others? That’s a personal choice.
We have no right to sacrifice what belongs to others. We don’t starve our own to feed the hungry. We don’t take the clothes off our children to clothe others. When we nurse the sick, we strive to avoid getting sick. When visit prisoners, we don’t stage jailbreaks. When we take in strangers, we don’t give up our own culture and beliefs or risk invasion and conquest.
Because we each belong to God, we have no business carelessly sacrificing our self. We must take care of our self so that we might serve as long as we can.
Go and do likewise (lifereference.wordpress.com): Here the author examines the last two verses from the parable, calling these lines the most fundamental of all of the teachings of Christ. Effectively, this is the minimum we must get out of the parable.
Who Crosses Your Path? (secretplacesofelelyon.wordpress.com): This post explains how some can twist the parable into a guilt trip.
Syrian refugees and Christian values? (insanitybytes2.wordpress.com): This post deals most directly with the refugee issue. It also has the least to say about the parable, but it says more than enough to justify including it here.