AN INSIGNIFICANT BLOG

AN INSIGNIFICANT BLOG

Friday, December 25, 2015

WHY TED CRUZ and MARCO RUBIO ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

WHY TED CRUZ and MARCO RUBIO ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO HOLD THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT DESPITE WHAT THE HARVARD LAW REVIEW CLAIMS, AND WHAT THE POSSIBLE FUTURE OF THE UNITED STATES COULD BE IF EITHER OF THESE MEN ARE ELECTED:
By: Most Rev. +Gregori
 
There are FIVE TERMS of CITIZENSHIP used in the Constitution of the United States. The following are the five defined terms along with some legal References to them:
#1. “CITIZEN of the United States” mentioned in various places in the Constitution.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES?
     A.) U.S. Citizenship status of the parents at the time of the child's birth. This means born to at least one U.S. Citizen parent (citizenship given by law) or;
      B.) Born in the United States & Subject to the Jurisdiction thereof. Contrary to popular belief, this does NOT include children born in the U.S. to parent(s) in the country illegally. Lastly, Naturalized Citizen, which is citizenship given by law via Federal Statutes.
Legal References: 14th Amendment, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; U.S. Supreme Court Case, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); U.S. Federal Statutes such as Title 8, Section 1401.
#2. “CITIZEN of the United States at the time of Adoption of this Constitution” also known as the 'Grandfather Clause' or 'Original Citizen' clause.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION?
      A.) Citizen of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted because prior to the adoption of the Constitution, there was no United States and all those living here were considered British subjects according to the British Crown.
Legal References: U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.
#3. “BORN CITIZEN” of the United States.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “BORN CITIZEN” OF THE UNITED STATES?
      A.) Born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof.
Legal References: U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution; U.S. Supreme Court Case, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); U.S. Federal Statutes such as Title 8, Section 1401. NOTE: Under the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court Ruling, “subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, meant both parents had to be legally in the U.S. when the child was born in the U.S. This amendment was NEVER intended to grant citizenship status to children (known as anchor babies) born here to parent(s) in the U.S. illegally.
#4. “NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES”.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “NATURALIZED CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES?
      A.) One NOT born in the United States. Citizenship rights obtained by processes governed by Federal Statutes which include the individual swearing or affirming an Oath of Allegiance to the USA and renouncing any and all foreign allegiances such as to any Prince, Potentate, government or leader.
Legal References: U.S. Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1 U.S. Federal Statutes.
#5. “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”.
WHAT MAKES ONE A “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
     A.) BOTH PARENTS MUST BE citizens, of any of the above types, of the United States at the time the child is born. The parents could have obtained citizenship by birth or naturalization. Natural born citizens are the children of parents (plural) who are U.S. Citizens at the time of the child's birth. It does not matter if the parents were naturalized or born citizens, just as long as BOTH the father and mother were U.S. citizens when their child was born. A “natural born citizen” is born with Unity of Citizenship and sole Allegiance at birth to only the U.S.
Legal References: U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. “Law of Nations”, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. U.S. Supreme Court cases: Venus (1814), Minor v. Happersett (1874), Perkins v. Elg. 307 U.S. 325(1939). Also comments by Congressman and Judge John Bingham, a framer of the 14th Amendment.
Since Ted Cruz was never subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at birth, then he was NEVER a Citizen who was Naturally Born exclusively as our citizen or in any way a United States Natural Born Citizen, which again is defined as or must at least encompass the definition of not owing allegiance to anybody else and completely under the jurisdiction of the United States of America only, at birth.
At Birth Ted Cruz is Canadian first, a Cuban national through is father secondly, and in a distant third, by operation of law (INA 1952) an U.S. citizen (through his mother) whose internationally recognized natural born citizenship rests in Cuba through his father, NOT the United States. His father did not become a "naturalized citizen" of the U.S. until 2005, years after Cruz's birth.
Marco Rubio was born in Florida, which makes him a "citizen" of the U.S. However, his parents were in the United States as immigrants from Cuba and they were NOT U.S. citizens at the time of Marco's birth. They did not become U.S. citizens until Marco was four years old, therefore Rubio does not meet the requirement of being a "natural born citizen".
This leads to the question; "Should the citizens of the United States have a Government and Governance that conforms to the Constitution of the United States, which in Article 6 of the Constitution, says it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, or not?
Barack Hussein Obama is in the same boat as Cruz and Rubio. Even IF Obama was born in Hawaii, he would still only be a citizen, NOT a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN", since his father was NEVER a citizen of the U.S. This means that Obama is NOT the legal President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, currently has no de facto President by operation of the Constitution of the United States, and if Cruz or Rubio were elected, the United States would operate under the same lawlessness and non-binding compliance to the U.S. Constitution as Obama operates under. Worse than that, as a second major party to have a constitutionally ineligible candidate elected to be POTUS under the Constitution designate (not being a U.S. Natural Born Citizen), an elected Cruz (or Rubio, or Jindal, by examples also) could be the excuse to DISSOLVE the Republic and that Constitution (with its Bill of Rights) we now have!
Saul Alinsky, the mentor of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, wrote in Rules for Radicals that any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.
The Ford & Rockefeller Foundations came up with the Constitution for the New States of America, some fifty-years ago, and ever since, those on the left have been pushing for an Article V Convention of States so that they can impose a new Constitution. So far, conservatives have managed to defeated these periodic pushes for a convention. This has led the left to change their tactics: They are now marketing it to appeal to conservatives by trying to convince conservatives that a convention is THE ONLY WAY to rein in the federal government. They are also telling conservatives that elections and nullification – THE REMEDIES OUR FRAMERS ACTUALLY ADVISED – don’t work. This how the left is beginning to make Americans feel that they have nothing to lose by a convention. Alinsky tactics are being used on the American People.
Several leftist Constitutions – in addition to the New States Constitution - have already been prepared and waiting for an Article V convention, because a new Constitution will be needed to transform the United States of America into a member State of the "North American Union". 
Can you guess who is on the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Task Force to set up the merging of Canada, the U.S.,and Mexico? None other than Heidi Cruz, the wife of the constitutionally ineligible candidate for President of the United States, Ted Cruz. Is this a coincidence, me thinks not. This Task Force is for the purpose of setting up a Parliament over the 3 countries.
The political establishments of both the DNC and the GOP WANT the North American Union, where Canada, the United States, and Mexico surrender their national sovereignty to a Parliament over the three countries. To help accomplish this, they want to get the American citizens used to having a President who is NOT a natural born citizen. This why the Democrats, aided and abetted by the Republicans got away with putting Barack Hussein Obama, an ineligible candidate, into the office of President, and it is also the reason why the GOP is doing everything possible to get either Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio elected president even though neither of them is constitutionally eligible as they are NOT "natural born citizens".
The political establishment powers that be feel that Ted Cruz would be the perfect choice to be the first president of the North American Union (NAU), because he was born in Canada to a Hispanic father (Cuban) and an American mother.
If this is allowed to proceed and the NAU comes into fruition, you can be 100% sure that none of the Bill of Rights will be included in the new constitution, and once gone, they will be gone for good. ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE THAT CHANCE?



 



Monday, November 16, 2015

IS THERE NO END TO OUR STUPIDITY?

IS THERE NO END TO OUR STUPIDITY?

Listening to to the drivel coming out of the mouths of those like the so-called experts on FOX NEWS, I have to believe that stupidity is totally ingrained in our society.

Obama insists that he will not back down on allowing Muslim refugees into the our country and, as a matter of fact, he wants to double down on the number to be allowed in. Several so-called experts that appeared on Shepherd Smith's show on FOX this afternoon, have been pretty much saying that those of us calling for a halt to allowing these Muslim "refugees" into the country are misguided and that we shouldn't call for changing who we are as a nation, a compassionate people. What they really mean is an ignorant people who don't know the difference between being compassionate and being stupid.

I have heard others, including Obama himself, say that we cannot end the Islamic threat by fighting them, that the only way to beat them is to correct the causes that make the Muslims want to attack us. The TRUTH is, neither Obama, nor the so called experts, even know what these so-called causes are.

Allow me to give you a  bit of a history lesson:


While in Mecca, Mohammad condemned paganism, and for the most part Mohammad showed great respect for the monotheism of the Christian and Jewish inhabitants and he claimed that the ALLAH of the Quran to be the same God worshiped by Jews and Christians, who now revealed himself to the Arab people through his chosen messenger, Muhammad. The Koranic revelations came later after Mohammad and his followers left Mecca for the city of Medina, which is when the transformation of Islam from a relatively benign form of monotheism into an expansionary, military-political ideology that persists to this day.

Around 620-640 AD, Islam broke out of Arabian Peninsula and began attacking and invading the middle east. Then around 720 AD, they began crossing the Mediterranean to the west  and attacking southern France and Spain, and projecting power throughout Mediterranean. Soon they were in parts of Italy and hammering the little islands around the Mediterranean. The navy of Islam attacked coastal towns, killing, robbing, raping and taking slaves. Over a million slaves were taken from Europe and brought into the Islamic world.

There were over two hundred battles fought in Spain alone, a war that lasted over 400 years as the Christians began to push back against the Muslims. Then on the east, Islam tried to break into Europe through Turkey which led to the fall of Constantinople and the Muslim invasion of eastern Europe, the Jihad has now come to eastern Europe. The Muslims pushed out of Spain and Northern Africa, by this time is completely Islamic, along with the middle east. This is totally relentless Jihad. Mohammad himself, the founder of Islam, was a relentless Jihadist. It became a tradition that as each new Sultan came to power, they would immediately try to launch new wars, as they would be remembered in Islamic history for how well they fought the Kafirs (the infidels, non-believers).

When Jihad is mentioned, there are those ill-informed morons who insist on bring up the Crusades, so lets compare the two. Starting around 1120 AD, the crusaders entered into Turkey and the middle east. then about 1240 AD, the final crusader battles were fought. There were far fewer battles then what the Muslims conducted. The Crusades ended in 1260 AD. Yes, it is true that there were Crusades, but they ended centuries ago, while Muslim Jihad is till being waged to this day. Jihad has been in existence for 1400 years. There is no comparison between the Crusades and Jihad, certainly NOT a moral comparison. Keep in mind that when speaking about the Crusades, they were all defensive wars, why? because it was Islam that came out of Arabia and conquered the Christian Middle east. The Crusaders, on the other hand, were trying to free their fellow Christian brothers and sisters. The purpose of the Muslim Jihad is to enslave or kill the Kafirs. So when you hear people blame Islamic terrorism on the Crusades, you know that those people don't know squat.


But I fear that it is true, "You cannot fix stupid."


Tuesday, October 6, 2015

AMERICA I THOUGHT I KNEW THEE WELL

AMERICA I THOUGHT I KNEW THEE WELL:

Unless you live in a cave somewhere in a remote area, one cannot help but feel that our government is using us, abusing us and downright lying to us on a daily basis. Our own elected officials from the president on down, from both parties and both Houses of Congress have been working overtime to destroy our nation. Watch the video and see if you agree.



#3 AMERICA I THOUGHT I KNEW THEE WELL by abouna1

Friday, September 11, 2015

WHERE HAVE ALL OUR MORALS GONE, LONG TIME PASSING? WHEN WILL WE EVER LEARN?

Homosexuality in America has been elevated nearly to the point of becoming a National Religion. A government-sponsored and established religion infringing upon our most cherished unalienable rights of religious liberty and property rights, in direct violation of the Constitution's Establishment Clause.

In 1792, James Madison wrote, concerning Property; “conscience is the most sacred of all property.” In the final version of the Constitution adopted by Congress, Madison said: “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship…nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed….”



But in today's America, we have actual property rights and the most sacred property – conscience – being forced to capitulate to a new and more highly esteemed right – an entitlement being used to force states to redefine marriage – in order to placate and service the ferocious and fervent agenda of the homosexual agenda.


A few years ago, Obama gave a speech, in which it was absolutely clear that his goal, like that of homosexual activists, was not simply equal legal rights, but rather, to overturn thousands of years of of moral teaching that has acknowledged the harms of homosexual conduct and the unique benefits of marriage between a man and a woman. He also dismissed those values as "outworn arguments and old attitudes," while accusing those involved in grassroots campaigns to defend marriage as being "divisive and deceptive to feed people's lingering fears for political and ideological gain. In other words, if you hold to traditional values, the ultimate goal is simple -- to shut you up by any means possible. Obama told House Republicans, "Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach." That, folks was a warning the American people should have heeded.

In 2013, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy declared marriage to be fully within the domain of the states. here is what he had to say: "The states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce, and the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.”
 

 Justice Kennedy went on to say that "Regulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States. The Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.” He also said; "Until recent years,. . . marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization.”

Now, just two years later, Justice Anthony Kennedy, along with four other justices decided to play God and legislate from the bench, declaring that same-sex marriage is now the LAW of the LAND.

One must ask themselves, how could a state like Kentucky, which broke no law, since it merely defined marriage as it had always been defined, as Justice Kennedy had stated, and exercised its “exclusive province” over marriage to reinforce that interpretation with 75% of the vote, suddenly now be in contempt of court just two years later? How can Justice Kennedy, along with five other justices have the power to overturn his own writings just two years previously in order to assert a new federal right superseding everything the state has ever done in defining marriage?

The obvious answer is that Kennedy and the others created a national religion in the year 2015 that will force state officials and even private land owners to obey the homosexual religious edicts or face jail time. Why wasn't a gay Texas judge threatened with jail time for refusing to marry heterosexual couples, even though that was the law of the land since the state’s founding?


Individuals are now being jailed or fined for not servicing homosexual weddings, and not just Kim Davis.  There have been countless cases of private business owners who have been fined or forced to abandon their livelihood for refusing to service the homosexual religion with their private property and private labor. This is exactly what our Founders had in mind when they prohibited the establishment of a national religion. They never intended to eradicate all religious symbolism, their only desire that one religious denomination not persecute the other and violate their unalienable rights. But that is exactly what is occurring under this pagan inquisition known as the U.S. Supreme Court and the homosexual agenda. Why should the display of the Ten Commandments at government buildings deserve less legitimacy than Obama’s display of the rainbow, the gay symbol, at the White House?

On August 20, 1789, during the House floor debate over the First Amendment, James Madison explained the purpose of the Establishment Clause as follows: “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.”


What is clear is that faithful Christians  cannot accept the undermining of authentic marriage, since homosexual sex acts, even if engaged in with one partner over a long period of time are not the equivalent of a marriage, no matter what any court or legislature says to the opposite.
 

 The reason that marriage - and the family founded upon it - has become the foundation of civil societies across ethnic, geographical, religious and racial communities is because it is an institution revealed by the Natural Law. It is not, and never was some social experiment to be discarded, redefined or replaced. Also, the legal and policy effort of the "Human Rights Campaign" to equate how one engages in non-marital sexual acts with a member of the same sex to being a member of a particular race, or gender, making practicing homosexuals a "protected class" for civil rights purposes is legally as well a socially dangerous. One is a status; the other involves a behavior and a lifestyle.

Yes, Obama  has sent the signal that he will not defend marriage. Instead he will become the champion of the Homosexual Equivalency movement. 

The concept of tolerance seems logical, after all, are we not tolerate everyone else? We should not judge people or discriminate against them because of genetics or similar characteristics. Tolerance is based on this noble foundation, however the framework built on this foundation has distorted and perverted a perfectly moral concept.


Our schools have gone far beyond simply teaching that we should tolerate—accept—someone because they are African, Chinese, short, tall, thin, etc. We have reached a point where our society and and our schools are teaching our children that they should be tolerant of every action they would encounter. This is called indoctrination/brainwashing.

Today, for example, when a child throws a temper-tantrum, he/she is no longer an unruly child, they are merely a child expressing themselves. There is now always a reason—an excuse—for what is simply wrong or sinful behavior. 

Advocates of tolerance often recite the mantra, “As long as we are not hurting others, what we do to ourselves is our business.” While modern society cannot stop people from committing immoral acts, individuals must realize that their actions do carry serious consequences. American society has now reached point where virtually anything is tolerated. The basis of true tolerance would be to tolerate all viewpoints, but the one view point that is not tolerated is God's viewpoint.


Today, even very young children are now being taught about lifestyles and sexual concepts that would make adults blush. This is being done so that such beliefs and ideals will be ingrained into them as they grow into adults.


 Anything and everything is tolerated in our society, except those who warn of the consequences of such tolerance.

A large part of the problem comes from people not understanding or knowing what their roles should be. When you show that there are differences between men and women, a multitude of loud, angry and strident voices rise from the left, and usually overpower the one speaking. But understand! Men and women were NOT created equal. We are not the same. This is not to say that men are better or vice-versa, but the simple fact is: Males and females are different.


Modern thinkers, in what is perhaps the most sexist act of all, have tried to blur those differences, instead of allowing men and women to develop their natural abilities—which would result in a more productive and balanced society. 

Men are being emasculated while women are being hardened. Thus, people have lost who they are, and popular culture is helping this to develop. in the mid 1960's asexual-looking males became popular. Fashion and hairstyles became unisex. And this has increasingly become the norm, as "pretty" men are the ones who walk the runways and star in movies and, again, boys are unsure who they are and who they should be. Young boys have become so confused by the images drilled into them, some even feel they were born the wrong gender—thinking that God somehow made a mistake in their creation.


The effect is often subtle and, like the transition of our culture from morality to immorality, the changes seem minor and “tolerable.” Today, the man is no longer the head of the home. His role of authority has been destroyed, and horribly behaved children are the result. This not surprising since when one does not respect authority, the standards and rules of authority are also no longer respected—and, at times, they are openly challenged, and once the line in the sand is blurred, it becomes easier for young people to cross it.

In American society today, women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men, and are increasingly becoming the instigators in premarital sex.  Strong conservative women are portrayed as boring and weak. Radical feminism has sought sexual liberation and has contributed to a perverse, immoral society.

Men no longer lead the relationship, thus assuming a role not natural for them, which forces women to also walk a path that is not natural for them. Marital problems often stem from partners not understanding and fulfilling their natural roles, so that over half of all marriages today end in divorce.


Children are left to grow in a confusing environment when their parents play these distorted roles. People are not born thinking they are something different than they are. Boys are born knowing they are boys, and the same can be said for girls. But society—and at times, parents—greatly influence child development and their ability to identify with their gender. It is our society, schools and parents that have created gender identity problems for children.

Don't believe it? The following are actual courses taught in schools nationwide:

“What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality in Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21” or “Teach Out,” which was held in Massachusetts. It featured Massachusetts Department of Education employees—government employees—instructing children as young as 14 in how to properly perform homosexual sex acts.

Here is another one: “One Teenager in Ten: Writings by Gay & Lesbian Youth.” This recommended book in the California school system discusses, in explicit detail, a 16-year old’s first lesbian experience with her 23-year old dance teacher. The story continues, teaching that she should hide the experience from her religious parents.

Are you sure that your child is not learning some of the above courses? Many of these and others have been introduced into school systems under the banner of “tolerance.” This has caused many educators to open their doors to such “modern” and “politically correct” attitudes and teachings.

By classifying such courses and assemblies as “Anti-Hatred,” many schools allow very young children to be taught such explicit materials without a parent ever knowing. In fact, some schools actually inform our children not to tell their parents what they are being taught. Is it any wonder that such perversion has gripped our society?

A core concept of those on the left, as well as some on the right, to destroy marriage. In a perverse and immoral society, the concept of marriage and family becomes irrelevant.


The concept of homosexuality is neither new nor original. It has existed since ancient times. Near the fall of any dominant society, homosexuality flourished. Be it in Sodom and Gomorrah, or ancient Greece, the proliferation of homosexuality has become the great indicator that a society’s days were numbered.

The very  survival of homosexuality also links it to other perversions—such as pedophilia. A 1998 study showed that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual. In fact, the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality verifies, “that until very recently man/boy love relationships were accepted as a part, and indeed were a major part, of male homosexuality.” The links continue: Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white gay men have had sexual relations with boys under age 16.


I am not saying that all homosexuals look to corrupt children, but historically, when taken as a whole, the man-boy relationship has been prevalent.

And as shocking as it may seem, schools are helping to promote this! In just the last year, various organizations have begun to promote curricula with increasing success. Schools all across the country have begun to teach children how to be homosexual—be it by cross-dressing, reading about homosexual relationships or even booklets teaching children what sodomy involves.


Many times, such programs are delivered to children without parental knowledge. Again, I ask, do you know if your children are being taught any of the following popular courses?:

Booklets like “Jesse’s Dream Skirt” and “In Mommy’s High Heels,” for elementary-age boys, show them that it is “good” to want to wear your mother’s high heels or your sister’s dresses. How about “Daddy’s Roommate” or “Heather Has Two Mommies”? Not to mention the courses listed in the introduction of this article.


And if it is not enough that children are being taught such things, teachers are being encouraged to take extended learning programs such as “Mobilizing Young Same Gender Loving Men,” “Responding Effectively to the Right Wing,” “Using Music to Deconstruct the Hetero-sexist Meaning of Family” and “Transgender Mind, Body, Spirit.”

These various curricular materials not only encourage experimentation with homosexuality, but also encourage such experimentation to be done without a parent’s knowledge.


If the curricula were not enough, a California school district unanimously passed a resolution that allowed teachers to “come out” to their classes, discussing such topics as homosexuality, sodomy and experimentation, with children as young as six-years old!

Again, what are your children being taught?


 The pedophilia movement in North America sounds very similar to the homosexual movement of years ago. Many states and provinces have now introduced legislation to define pedophilia as “mental disorder” instead of a crime. Like homosexuality, this is the stepping-stone into excusing pedophilia as a lifestyle choice that must be therefore understood and accepted.

There is also other legislation to reduce or remove the age of consent laws—the minimum age at which a child can legally have sex with an adult. Many countries have already reached crossroads in this. In Canada, the age of consent law allows children as young as 14 to have sexual relationships with an adult. In some states, the power of the lobbying groups is more evident. While New Mexico’s age of consent for heterosexuals is 17 years, it is 13 years for homosexuals. Take a moment and imagine if a 13-year old understands the consequences of sodomy. But this is the steady, ever-growing trend.


The voices of the pedophilia movement are gaining in intensity, and many are beginning to listen. Some popular psychiatrists have even stated that sexual relations between an adult and a child can be beneficial to the development of a child—shocking! While it may seem incredible that we are seeing such sweeping changes throughout society, it should never be so. As mentioned, before the fall of any society, rampant immorality reigns—especially pedophilia and homosexual.

While all of this is going on, far too many that call themselves Christians, sit back and do nothing.

All I can say, is God have mercy on us all.



Bishop Gregori

Friday, September 4, 2015

Post #1 - LIES MY GOVERNMENT TELLS US

  LIES MY GOVERNMENT TELLS US

How long can a society last when their government lies to them constantly? Who can you trust? We are about to find the answers to these questions because it has become a daily occurrence in America today for our government to lie, over and over, about both big and small matters.



#1 - LIES MY GOVERNMENT TELLS US by abouna1