Author Topic: Democrats Try To "FIX" The 2020 Election - Fake Ballots (Read 9282 times)

patrick jane · « **Reply #91 on:** August 04, 2020, 05:49:56 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/july/have-your-political-views-become-idol.html

Have Your Political Views Become An Idol?

As followers of Christ who are engaging in this process, are we starting to cross a line that shouldn’t be crossed?

Are your political views and convictions growing in intensity? Are you finding yourself feeling angrier than you used to be about a variety of political issues? Are people in your extended family, community, or church becoming angrier?

In addition to being in the midst of a global pandemic, widespread demonstrations about racial injustices, and an election year, we live in a media saturated environment where hate and division trigger wider viewership, larger ratings, and significantly higher advertising revenue.

In such an environment, how can we as individual Christians, or as pastors or ministry leaders tasked with leading others, know when we are getting sidetracked, especially when “believing you’re right and that others are wrong” triggers intense and addictive feelings?

Media outlets on both the left and right are using language and tactics to inflame anger, alienate, and disparage whomever ‘the other’ might be and, as a result, there are growing levels of disrespect and hatred towards people who hold different political views.

As followers of Christ who are engaging in this process, are we starting to cross a line that shouldn’t be crossed? And, if we are, how can we know when this is happening, and what are the costs?

Signs of political idolatry

Idolatry comes in all shapes and sizes. It is not limited to people who put a metal or wooden statue on an altar and light incense to it. Although this happens in many parts of the world, idolatry is a deeper issue. Here are a few questions to discern if it is at work in our hearts.

Who or what am I trusting to provide for my future?

People enter into idolatry because they feel the need for safety and security. Life can be hard and even if we are experiencing good times, there is a sense that we do not want them to end.

It doesn’t take much to realize how truly fragile, vulnerable, and powerless we are in this world. The pandemic alone, with all its recent economic ripple effects, has made this painfully clear even for many who thought they could control their destinies.

Political idolatry happens when we begin fixating on what a human leader or political party can do for us more than we focus our eyes on our Heavenly Father, our true provider who calls us to trust him and not worry (Matt. 6:25-34).

How am I treating people who disagree with me?

We can also tell if we have moved into political idolatry by how we treat people with different opinions, be they on the left or right of the political spectrum. All human beings, despite their political views or political affiliations, are made in God’s image (Gen. 1:26-28).

As such, humans are held to a very high standard regarding how we treat people. Jesus said in Matthew 25:31-46 that whatsoever we do to “the least of these” we have done to him. In the current political environment “the least of these” are often whoever is on the other end of the political spectrum.

When we interact with “those people” who see political and social issues so differently, do we treat them with dignity and honor the way we would treat Jesus? Are we treating them with kindness so we bear the image of our Heavenly Father (Matt. 5:43-48)?

Where is my loyalty being placed?

The next logical step in discerning if we are letting our political views become idols is by looking at the loyalty and allegiance question. When faced with a choice between what political pundits and political leaders are asking us to do, and what Scripture asks of us as followers of Christ, which actions do we take?

For example, God is going to judge us for how we speak about people, and for the names we call them (Matt. 5:21-24). Do we take our cues from political leaders and fear them, or do we fear God, the one who deserves our ultimate allegiance (Luke 12:2-5)?

Costs of political idolatry

Sometimes, we might make light of these things and rationalize why it is OK to choose political rhetoric and divisive behavior over behaviors and attitudes God calls us to in Scripture. Perhaps it is spiritual warfare that is causing us to not step back and assess the broader impact of political idolatry, for it comes at a great cost (1 John 2:1-11).

Distorted discipleship

Essential in the discipleship process is the formation of a new core identity. When we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we become children of God (Rom. 8:14-17), and the chief aim of our life is to grow in Christ-likeness (2 Cor. 3:18; 2 Cor. 5:14-21).

Political idolatry forms in us a different core identity, and from that a very different ‘likeness’ emerges. Discipleship becomes distorted as we say that we are Christians but attitudes, words and behaviors begin resembling the messaging of politicians and pundits on the right or the left more than our risen Lord.

Marred witness

The distorted discipleship then leads to a marred witness. Rather than seeing Christians who have hope in a God with ultimate power and authority, who is ushering in an eternal kingdom, they see people rallying around political figures and behaving in ways that seem at times to be wholly contradictory to how their Bible, that they say informs and guides their lives, is telling them to live and treat people in the world.

Jesus taught his followers that people would know we are Christians by our love (John 13:34-35), but political idolatry frequently holds opposing values. People begin thinking it is fine to hate, malign, publicly embarrass, ridicule and even bully those with different political views.

So, at a time when a broken world needs the witness of Christ more than ever, political idolatry clouds and disfigures this witness, and the end result is far fewer people believe that the gospel is true or good news at all.

Broken societies

And out of distorted discipleship and marred witness, horrific things can happen in society. Walk the path of Auschwitz and you will never be the same, wondering how the place that was the hub of Western theology in its day could spawn such unfathomable horror.

How in the world could Christians commit intense violence against innocent people, merely because they were different? It happens when people substitute teachings of Jesus for political ideologies.

Some might say that is just an extreme case. Yet we saw it in Rwanda as well, and at that time their nation was dubbed the “most Christian” of all countries. It happened in Sarajevo and refugees said, “We never thought it could happen here. We were so educated.”

However, extreme violence did happen, because professing Christians chose political idolatry over loyalty to the teachings of Christ. And brokenness in our own society continues as the remnants of slavery and segregation, political positions once vehemently supported by many Christians, result in people of color still regularly having to navigate discrimination in a variety of forms.

God deserves better from us

In the midst of a global pandemic, protests, and economic turmoil, Christianity proclaims that it has “good news” to share with the world. The Lamb of God, through his sacrificial work on the cross, took away divisions among people where hatred and prejudice had separated them for generations.

Through his blood, he reconciled Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:11-22), he destroyed economic and racial barriers (1 Cor. 12:13), gender barriers (Gal. 3:28), and other seemingly irreconcilable cultural differences (Col. 3:10-12). The first chapter of Colossians proclaims that Jesus reconciled to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

It is because of all that God has done for us through the blood of Christ that he deserves to have no other idols before him. These are not harmless political games that are being played. This is deadly serious.

The world needs the church, and every person within it, to set aside political idolatry so people can see our Risen Lord. It doesn’t mean that we don’t engage in political processes and seek to influence our societies. It does mean we keep Christ and his teachings first and foremost as we do this.

Mary Lederleitner is author of the book Women in God’s Mission and Managing Director of the Church Evangelism Institute at the Wheaton College Billy Graham Center.

patrick jane · « **Reply #92 on:** August 07, 2020, 05:39:04 am »

8/7/20

Donald J. Trump Retweeted
The White House
@WhiteHouse
·
Aug 5

US government account
LIVE: President
@realDonaldTrump
holds a news conference

The White House
·
879.8K viewers
0:01 / 33:01

The White House
@WhiteHouse
LIVE: President @realDonaldTrump holds a news conference
pscp.tv
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
BIG NEWS! The Political Crime of the Century is unfolding. ObamaBiden illegally spied on the Trump Campaign, both before and after the election. Treason!
Quote Tweet

Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
· Aug 5
Sally Yates just testified that she would not have signed off on the surveillance of Carter Page if she knew what she knows now. That follows Rod Rosenstein saying the same thing. https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/04/rosenstein-slams-mccabe-obstruction-theories-and-1000-prosecutors/
Show this thread
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
Every time you see a negative Big Pharma commercial against me remember, it means your drug prices are coming way down!
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1290980559519395840/video/1
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
716.7K views
0:00 / 0:58
From
Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022)
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
765.2K views
0:00 / 2:10
From
Team Trump (Text TRUMP to 88022)
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
Sally Yates has zero credibility. She was a part of the greatest political crime of the Century, and ObamaBiden knew EVERYTHING! Sally Yates leaked the General Flynn conversation? Ask her under oath. Republicans should start playing the Democrats game!
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
.
@CNN
has no sources on the Task Force. Their “sources” are made up, pure fiction! Jim Acosta is a Fake reporter!
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
Nevada has ZERO infrastructure for Mail-In Voting. It will be a corrupt disaster if not ended by the Courts. It will take months, or years, to figure out. Florida has built a great infrastructure, over years, with two great Republican Governors. Florida, send in your Ballots!
Donald J. Trump Retweeted
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
I will be interviewed on
@foxandfriends
at 7:30 A.M. Enjoy!
Donald J. Trump Retweeted
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 4
0:23
63.5M views
From
Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
·
Aug 5
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGA

patrick jane · « **Reply #93 on:** August 11, 2020, 11:30:17 am »

Black Lives Matter is a Domestic Terrorist Organization | Change My Mind

Steven Crowder takes to the streets of Austin to have real conversations with real people. In this installment, Steven posits that Black Lives Matter is a domestic terrorist organization.

1 hour 7 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yITK_Bm78mI

patrick jane · « **Reply #94 on:** September 01, 2020, 11:51:05 am »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm1ZD9hFPO4&list=WL&index=4&t=0s

patrick jane · « **Reply #95 on:** September 09, 2020, 09:26:39 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/september-web-only/cut-stone-confederate-monuments-ryan-newson.html

Monuments Can Be Destroyed, but Not Forgotten

Our most controversial stone statues carry layers of communal history that aren’t easily cast aside.

In the Hebrew Scriptures, stone monuments are earthen witnesses to a sacred covenant. When Jacob contractually maneuvered himself out from under his father-in-law Laban, he set up a pillar in the highlands of Gilead. It was supposed to be a reminder of a legal separation, but the fragility of the peace was underscored by the dueling names given to the monument: Jacob’s in the Hebrew tongue, Laban’s in Aramaic. The monument was barely dedicated before it became an object of linguistic civil war.

What’s old is new again. Disputes over historical markers and their meanings are simply the continuance of culture war by other means. Theologian Ryan Andrew Newson wrote his new book Cut in Stone: Confederate Monuments and Theological Disruption in the wake of the 2017 protests and counter-protests in Charlottesville, Virginia. Thousands of organized white nationalists infamously marched through the University of Virginia campus chanting language—“White Lives Matter!” “Blood and Soil!”—charged with centuries of racial supremacy. The material cause for the march was the threatened removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Erected in 1924, the statue presented a genteel, handsome Lee—hat in hand, martial but not militaristic. The stone general is resigned but undefeated, like the Lost Cause he represents.

The statue lasted decades in the city center without scrutiny, but in the 21st century, it struck some as strange to venerate the leader of a rebellion devoted to the preservation of chattel slavery. Newson’s book delves into the history of Confederate monuments like this one, asking what sort of political ideology—or theology—underwrites them. What did these monuments—often constructed many decades after Lee resigned at Appomattox—mean for the communities that created them? What gave them their near-sacred value? And what is the appropriate political and theological response to markers of a contested American legacy? Can you—should you—erase a moral tragedy?

Remembering a Tragic History
When they were originally constructed, monuments to Confederate leaders and soldiers were remarkably free of cultural guilt. Hundreds of statues appeared in over 30 states in the aftermath of Reconstruction, as the South began to rehabilitate its image—and historical memory. As Newson points out in fascinating detail, the Confederacy was re-memorialized decades after its military defeat. Monument construction was most intense from 1890 to 1950, a span of time that unsurprisingly coincides with Jim Crow.

Other defeated nations and causes have wrestled with how to remember a tragic history. Germany after the Second World War underwent a therapy of historical penance that continues even today. The Confederacy, however, did not. Its monuments served a “palliative” purpose, Newson argues, aiming to “alleviate collective suffering without addressing the root cause of the pain.” So the stone figures stood as reminders of the genteel honor and heroic manhood of figures such as Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis—eliding their militant defense of chattel slavery. With these symbolic moves, the memory of slavery was quickly shunted into the distant past, even as its system of involuntary unpaid labor shifted from the plantation to the chain gang in the late-19th century and the systemic incarceration of African Americans in the 20th.

As a historical project, Cut in Stone focuses on the Reconstruction-era South, but Newson’s theological analysis touches more broadly on the nature of historical memory and the moral obligations of a political community that is still haunted by the sins of its fathers. Newson’s book was published in the middle of the summer of 2020—a wry moment of providence if ever there was one. While Charlottesville in 2017 provides the backdrop to the book, more recent events have made its subject matter even timelier.

I was invited to review Newson’s book the day that statues of Christopher Columbus were removed from Grant Park and Arrigo Park in my hometown of Chicago. A week prior, a confrontation between protesters and police had centered on the statue in Grant Park. As protestors attempted to topple Columbus by force, multiple people on both sides of the conflict were injured.

In the early-20th century, the monuments had been commissioned by Italian-American communities in Chicago to memorialize the Genoese explorer, who at that time evoked a spirit of exploration and American destiny. Forgotten for centuries was Columbus’s brutal subjugation of indigenous peoples—not to mention the mercenary motivations of his transatlantic voyages.

There’s a reason political communities—and movements—make myths about themselves. And not all of them are formed in malice or bad faith. We typically retell the story of the civil rights movement in heightened rhetoric that foregrounds its best ideals while leaving other details—including the moral peccadillos of its leaders—in the shadows. Only recently have we begun to tell the stories of grassroots figures like Ida B. Wells and Fannie Lou Hamer in addition to chronicling the (sometimes problematic) charismatic male leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. When a narrative has been told for decades, or centuries, it takes of lot of intention to reorder historical memory.

In Charlottesville and Chicago, historical myths finally cracked. The stone figures of Lee and Columbus, for different reasons, were not mere historical memories, but witnesses to some deeper sense of national or ethnic identity.

One of the blind spots of modern liberalism—the political philosophy, not the ideology—is its studied obliviousness to the sacral elements of social life and national identity. There’s a reason that the debate over stone structures reaches the fevered pitch that it does. You find out what a community reveres when the removal of its earthen symbols triggers charges of disrespect, violation, and even blasphemy. You find out what a revolution really seeks when you notice what the iconoclasts want to destroy.

Newson is appropriately circumspect when asking what the proper social or theological response ought to be toward Confederate monuments. There is no way to continue honoring the noblesse oblige of figures like Lee and Jackson without resorting to a moral naivete that is willfully ignorant of American history. The instinct to topple national idols is understandable. But does destruction lead to erasure? Is there a reason to remember the tragedies of American history in a way that acknowledges the complications of the past without giving honor where shame is due?

Handle with Care
This is where the virtue of prudence comes in handy, as virtues do. How do we distinguish among the different symbols—what they portray and what they represent for a variety of communities? If we decide collectively that honorific statues of Confederate military leaders should be removed, or perhaps limited to museum exhibits, should we do the same for Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or even Abraham Lincoln? All of these figures have come under scrutiny, often for good reasons.

On July 24th, the day Columbus came down in Chicago, one of the protestors made the statement that the statue symbolized negative values that the city needed to “acknowledge,” but also “divorce ourselves from.” The monument, she said, had “nothing to do with where Chicago is going and our future.” But that’s the tricky, sometimes awful thing about sacred symbols: Even though they are only made of stone, they carry layers of communal history that aren’t easily cast aside. Is it important to remember what Columbus represented to Italian-Americans at a time when they were also the victims of white supremacy? How does that piece of history need to be preserved once the idol has been toppled?

Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot explained that the removal was “an effort to protect public safety and to preserve a safe space for an inclusive and democratic public dialogue about our city's symbols.” Which seems quite responsible in such tenuous and terrifying times. Putting a hold on things—providing space for deliberative liberalism to do what it does best—seems prudent.

And yet few, on the left or the right, seemed disposed to mimic the mayor’s temperament. Charges of lawlessness were thrown from one side, and charges of brutality and moral complicity from the other. Few seemed satisfied with the mayor’s actions—or if they were, they were reluctant to say it publicly.

Newson’s historical and theological analysis reminds us that a statue is rarely just a statue; stone pillars are usually consecrated to a cause—for better or worse. And while the past few summers of culture-warring haven’t come close to resolving every question of whether our most controversial monuments should stay up, come down, or go elsewhere, Cut in Stone provides a helpful framework for understanding the political and theological principles at stake.

Clearly, sacred objects ought to be handled carefully. And yet, sometimes their destruction—as with golden calves or stone tablets—is the more meaningful response. If Moses smashed stones etched by the divine hand in response to national idolatry, then what kind of iconoclasm calls to us today?

David Henreckson is the director of the Institute for Leadership and Service at Valparaiso University. He is the author of The Immortal Commonwealth: Covenant, Community, and Political Resistance in Early Reformed Thought.

patrick jane · « **Reply #96 on:** September 12, 2020, 10:22:37 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/september/bahrain-israel-peace-treaty-trump-united-arab-emirates-uae.html

Bahrain Makes Peace with Israel, Following United Arab Emirates

Today’s deal will normalize diplomatic, commercial, and security ties. Trump administration hopes more Arab nations soon follow.

Bahrain has become the latest Arab nation to agree to normalize ties with Israel as part of a broader diplomatic push by President Donald Trump and his administration to fully integrate the Jewish state into the Middle East.

Trump announced the agreement on Friday, following a three-way phone call he had with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. The three leaders also issued a brief six-paragraph joint statement, attesting to the deal.

“Another HISTORIC breakthrough today!” Trump tweeted.

The announcement on the 19th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks came less than a week before Trump hosts a White House ceremony to mark the establishment of full relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Bahrain’s foreign minister will attend the event.

“There’s no more powerful response to the hatred that spawned 9/11 than this agreement,” Trump told reporters at the White House.

It represents another diplomatic win for Trump less than two months before the presidential election and an opportunity to shore up support among pro-Israel evangelicals. Just last week, Trump announced agreements in principle for Kosovo to recognize Israel and for Serbia to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“This is a historic breakthrough to further peace in the Middle East,” Trump, Netanyahu, and King Hamad said in the statement. “Opening direct dialogue and ties between these two dynamic societies and advanced economies will continue the positive transformation of the Middle East and increase stability, security, and prosperity in the region.”

Most people vividly remember where they were on the dreadful day, 19 years ago, when terrorists hijacked planes, weaponizing them as bombs to be flown into buildings. As a sophomore studying at Union University (Jackson, TN), I remember the images flashing across the TV screen as we paused our “Becoming a Global Christian” class. The professor, the students, we were all speechless as we witnessed live coverage of the second plane hitting the second tower.

Like the UAE agreement, Friday’s Bahrain-Israel deal will normalize diplomatic, commercial, security, and other relations between the two countries. Bahrain, along with Saudi Arabia, had already dropped a prohibition on Israeli flights using its airspace. Saudi acquiescence to the agreements has been considered key to the deals.

Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner noted that the agreement is the second Israel has reached with an Arab country in 30 days after having made peace with only two Arab nations—Egypt and Jordan—in 72 years of its independence.

“This is very fast,” Kushner told The Associated Press. “The region is responding very favorably to the UAE deal and hopefully it’s a sign that even more will come.”

Netanyahu welcomed the agreement and thanked Trump. “It took us 26 years between the second peace agreement with an Arab country and the third, but only 29 days between the third and the fourth, and there will be more,” he said, referring to the 1994 peace treaty with Jordan and the more recent agreements.

The agreement will likely be seen as a further setback to the Palestinians who tried unsuccessfully to have the Arab League condemn normalization with Israel until they have secured an independent state. That was one of the few cards still held by Palestinians in negotiations as peace talks remain stalled.

The joint statement made passing mention of the Palestinians, saying the parties will continue efforts “to achieve a just, comprehensive, and enduring resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to enable the Palestinian people to realize their full potential.”

The agreement makes Bahrain the fourth Arab country, after Egypt, Jordan, and the UAE, to have full diplomatic ties with Israel. Other Arab nations believed to be on the cusp of fully recognizing Israel include Oman and Sudan. While tacitly blessing the deals, Saudi Arabia—the regional power player—is not expected to move as quickly.

Like the UAE, Bahrain has never fought a war against Israel and doesn’t share a border with it. But Bahrain, like most of the Arab world, long rejected diplomatic ties with Israel in the absence of a peace deal establishing a Palestinian state on lands captured by Israel in 1967.

The agreement could give a boost to Netanyahu, who was indicted on corruption charges last year. Deals with Gulf Arab states “are the direct result of the policy that I have led for two decades,” namely “peace for peace, peace through strength,” Netanyahu has said.

The Israeli-UAE deal required Israel to halt its contentious plan to annex occupied West Bank land sought by the Palestinians. Telephone calls soon began working between the nations as they continue to discuss other deals, including direct flights.

While the UAE’s population remains small and the federation has no tradition of standing up to the country’s autocracy, Bahrain represents a far-different country.

Just off the coast of Saudi Arabia, the island of Bahrain is among the world’s smallest countries, only about 760 square kilometers (290 square miles). Bahrain’s location in the Persian Gulf long has made it a trading stop and a naval defensive position. The island is home to the US Navy’s 5th Fleet and a recently built British naval base.

Bahrain is acutely aware of threats posed by Iran, an anxiety that comes from Bahrain’s majority Shiite population, despite being ruled since 1783 by the Sunni Al Khalifa family. Iran under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi had pushed to take over the island after the British left, though Bahrainis in 1970 overwhelmingly supported becoming an independent nation and the UN Security Council unanimously backed that.

Since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, Bahrain’s rulers have blamed Iran for arming militants on the island. Iran denies the accusations, though weapons experts suggest explosives found there bear similarities to others linked to Iran. Israel and Iran view each other as top regional enemies.

Outside of those tensions, Bahrain’s Shiite majority has accused the government of treating them like second-class citizens. The Shiites joined pro-democracy activists in demanding more political freedoms in 2011, as Arab Spring protests swept across the wider Middle East. Saudi and Emirati troops ultimately helped violently put down the demonstrations.

In recent years, Bahrain has cracked down on all dissent, imprisoned activists, and hampered independent reporting on the island. While the Obama administration halted the sale of F-16 fighter jets to Bahrain over human rights concerns, the Trump administration dropped that after coming into office.

Bahrain’s royal family and officials have come out in support of the Israel-UAE agreement. However, civil society groups and others have condemned the move and warned the monarchy not to follow in the UAE’s footsteps—despite Bahrain’s yearslong flirtation with Israel and Jewish leaders. Unlike the Emirates, Jews had a historical presence on the island and some still live there.

In 2017, two prominent US rabbis said Bahrain’s king told them he hoped the Arab boycott of Israel would end. An interfaith group from Bahrain that year also visited Israel, though the state-run Bahrain News Agency later said that it didn’t “represent any official entity” after an uproar erupted on social media.

Bahrain has increasingly relied on support from other nations as it struggles with its debts, particularly neighboring Saudi Arabia. In that way, Bahrain has followed in lockstep with Riyadh, meaning any normalization with Israel likely got the kingdom’s approval though Saudi Arabia has for its part remained silent since the Emirati announcement.

Associated Press writers Aya Batrawy in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and Ilan Ben Zion and Joseph Krauss in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

patrick jane · « **Reply #97 on:** September 19, 2020, 12:33:08 am »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/september/evangelicals-for-trump-faith-voters-campaign-rally-georgia.html

This Election, Evangelical Supporters Have More Faith in Trump

The campaign emphasizes another side of the president at “prayer, praise, and patriotism” rallies.

Joann Roberts had never been to a political rally before.

She prays for President Donald Trump every day and watches messages from his faith advisers online, including televangelists Paula White-Cain and Jentezen Franklin. When Roberts heard they would be speaking at a campaign event in Georgia, the Southern Baptist mom of three took off from her job as a hospital administrator and made the hour-long drive to a field in the far-flung Atlanta suburbs.

Wearing a neon pink shirt printed with the slogan “God, Family, Guns, and Trump,” she fit right in.

The 500-plus crowd at this week’s Evangelicals for Trump rally included local politicians, GOP organizers, and even an unannounced visit by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, but most were people like Roberts. They were veterans, retired couples, bikers, college students, and homeschool moms, all Christians who felt like this year they needed to do something more to show their support.

Several volunteers distributing hand sanitizer and masks (not required, but around a quarter wore them) said this was their first time working with a political campaign. They traded stories about going door to door for Trump and turning their guest rooms into makeshift call centers. They compared churches and voting districts. They offered compliments over their MAGA gear. “I got it at Ace Hardware,” one woman beamed when asked about her Trump 2020 mask. “They can’t keep them in stock!”

More than anything, these Georgia Christians gushed over what they had seen during Trump’s presidency: a leader who came through on his pledge to appoint conservative justices, defend religious freedom, and oppose abortion. “He really just kept his promises,” said Fred Engel, wearing a red plaid shirt and a volunteer lanyard around his neck. “I don’t remember a single politician in my 68 years who did that.”

While detractors critique the president as divisive, arrogant, and cruel, voters like Engel instead view Trump as a family man, with the devoted support of Ivanka, Don Jr., and Eric, who came out to stump for his father at the Cumming, Georgia, rally. The crowd offered up a collective “amen” when Eric suggested that “in the Bible, it’s always an imperfect person” used by God.

“I believe my father was put here for a reason,” the younger Trump son said. “It was because of a higher deity and entity, and that’s why the evangelical community has rallied around him.”

Despite the white evangelical turnout for Trump before, it wasn’t quite like this last time.

“I believe most evangelicals—most pastors for certain—four years ago probably voted against Hillary Clinton. Four years later, many if not most are voting for Donald Trump,” said Chuck Allen, a local pastor who prayed to open the event. “That’s a significant difference.”

Polls back him up on the first part. A majority of white evangelicals who planned to vote for Trump in 2016 were driven more by their opposition to Clinton than by the appeal of Trump as a candidate, Pew Research showed.

But now, while Trump’s evangelical opponents are more vocal against the president’s polarizing rhetoric and America First policies, supporters instead say they have reason for more enthusiasm. They cite Trump’s conservative stances in office and the spiritual backing of several evangelical leaders who have had an open door to pray with him at the White House throughout his first term.

As sociologist Gerardo Martí wrote, Trump has made inroads with evangelicals “because he engages in actions in support of religiously defined group interests rather than as a result of statements of belief or piety of behavior.” Even with some slips over the first half of the year, more than half of white evangelicals (59%) still “very strongly” approved of the president as of this summer, compared to 29 percent of Americans overall.

The Trump campaign has set out to maximize that support. It amped up its evangelical outreach, beginning with a kickoff event in Miami at the start of the year featuring No. 45 himself and continuing with hundreds of local MAGA meetups and dozens of “prayer, praise, and patriotism” events ahead of the November election.

Leading the charge is the president’s pastor and top prayer partner White-Cain, who recounts how she has served as a spiritual adviser for the businessman-turned-politician for nearly 20 years and took on an official White House role in 2019. She brings along husband Jonathan Cain from the band Journey, leading to requisite references to “Don’t Stop Believin’” and “Faithfully.” At the event, he performed to an audio track of a worship song he wrote called “Freedom in Your Grace.”

The campaign has also enlisted fellow evangelical advisers and pastors like Franklin, whose son now works for the campaign; National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference executive vice president Tony Suarez, who has joined four Evangelicals for Trump events so far this year; and Allen, who was enlisted to join an upcoming event in Phoenix after helping with the one in his area.

Evangelicals for Trump events are set up differently than the larger rallies for a broader Trump crowd, starting off with an invocation and familiar praise music. In a divisive and defensive election year, the gathering in Georgia this week, held outside a local barn event space, hummed with the calm relief of shared faith and shared politics. No rowdy factions. No snarky signs. No hollering or boos.

Attendees, seated in folding chairs spaced a couple feet apart, slowly swayed as they sang along to “This Is Amazing Grace” and “Way Maker,” performed by a stripped-down worship band from Allen’s church, a nearby nondenominational congregation with 4,500 attendees.

While the faith leaders focused mostly on the administration’s victories, Eric Trump criticized the “radical” protesters taking the streets in cities across the US and the decision for some states to allow businesses to reopen before churches.

There were four standing ovations for law enforcement, who were present at the event as security. The only reference to violence faced by black Americans—the inciting incidents leading to the recent protests—came from Franklin, who expressed frustration at false divisions: “It’s like if you’re for President Trump … that means you’re automatically not upset if you see a black man being beaten or choked to death in the streets. I stand for both. I stand for justice and righteousness.”

Perhaps the weather helped things feel particularly peaceful too. It was the coolest day all summer in the area—overcast, breezy, and 70 degrees. The invocation prayer referenced a “God-ordained” forecast.

Even when it began to drizzle, attendees stayed seated, applauding and waving when they noticed Eric Trump sneak out the side of the barn to jet off to his next campaign appearance and mm-hmming in agreement during closing prayers for Americans to vote for “life, faith, and freedom.”

The Evangelicals for Trump events emphasize a softer side of the notoriously combative president, with stories about the president’s faith and family alongside lists of political wins. White-Cain said “it was his idea” to call for prayer against the “evil” of coronavirus. Eric admitted that the Trumps went into the 2016 campaign “not knowing a damn thing about politics,” but they worked together as a family and “God got us here.”

Though he is a vocal Trump supporter, as a pastor, Allen recognizes the tension between the draw of the president’s conservative political priorities and the turnoff of his reputation as a bully.

“President Trump doesn’t make it easy for evangelicals,” said Allen, who built a rapport with Trump’s team during visits to the Mexican border two years ago and to the Bahamas after Hurricane Dorian last summer. “I wish you could see a more compassionate Trump that I believe sincerely exists, but there’s just so much bluster around him.”

Allen estimates that his nondenominational, blue-collar congregation, Sugar Hill Church, is about “60 percent Trump and 40 percent anyone-but-Trump,” but the Trump faction has become more eager to take a stand.

Sugar Hill, he said, has benefited from a Trump economy, its members boasting more jobs and more sales, even in recent months. (The statewide unemployment rate has fallen back down to 5.6 percent, better than the national average.) As a result, the church has been able to expand its ministry reach, launching new worship sites and supporting hundreds of families with rent assistance and meal distribution during the pandemic.

The coronavirus pandemic, of course, has become a top issue for voters, and it’s also shaping the way campaigns and elections are being held in 2020. While the Trump campaign has continued to put on in-person events to rally Republican Party faithful, the Believers for Biden outreach has focused on virtual events and discussions.

“I don’t think in-person events will affect mobilization per se, but these events seem to serve a purpose in reinforcing certain aspects of political identity,” said Daniel Bennett, chair of the political science department at John Brown University. “Specifically, those attending events like the Evangelicals for Trump event are telling the world they’re not afraid of COVID and won’t let a pandemic dampen their enthusiasm for the election. Biden faith events, being virtual, align with the Democratic narrative that the pandemic should be treated seriously.”

Evangelicals attending the Georgia event may have had their minds made up about Trump, but the rally urged them to become more involved in getting others to vote for him. “I felt like this was the last ‘charge’ I needed before the election,” said Roberts.

Kemp, the Republican governor who narrowly beat out Democrat Stacey Abrams in 2018, emphasized how individuals could make a big difference for Trump. He suggested attendees think of “10 people you know, from your church, your neighborhood” whom they might register to vote in Georgia. (“In person!” someone yelled from the audience.)

Two tables offered voter registration information, and another had voter guides from the Faith & Freedom Coalition. Like other voter mobilization efforts targeting Christians, the Faith & Freedom Coalition has had fewer opportunities to reach voters in-person now that many churches and community events remain on hold during the pandemic.

The coalition, which typically urges pastors to host a “Registration Sunday” with a voter registration booth in their church lobby, now also offers a video announcement with instructions for registering from home.

“Based on my research, activities in church like voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives are akin to small group activities run by a few for the benefit of many,” said Paul Djupe, a Denison University political scientist who has researched political activity by churches. “I suspect that such activities have collapsed during the pandemic, defaulting to online worship and little else.”

Djupe found that distributing voter guides—like the ones from the Faith & Freedom Coalition—was the most common get-out-the-vote effort by evangelical churches, whereas black Protestant congregations were more than twice as likely to hold voter registration events.

With 49 days to go before the election, Trump backers at Tuesday’s event disagreed over whether the president stands to win in a landslide or another close race, but many repeated the refrain that this was the most important election of their lifetimes. Eric Trump and Allen referenced the potential for additional Supreme Court appointments in the next term. Others expressed broader concerns about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the economy being threatened under a Democratic administration.

“I did not get into this to be a politician. I’m a preacher … But I knew if I remained on the sideline and silent, and if all the preachers remained on the sideline and were silent, something was going to happen in the direction of this nation that could not ever be changed back again,” said Franklin, who leads Free Chapel in Gainesville, Georgia.

Speaking to rows dotted with telltale red baseball caps, with “Great Is Thy Faithfulness” playing in the background like an altar call, the pastor offered a closing charge.

“In every election, we have a responsibility to vote our faith. I don’t go in the booth and leave Jesus on the other side,” he said. “If we vote, we win. If we don’t vote, we lose.”

patrick jane · « **Reply #98 on:** September 24, 2020, 02:01:46 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2020/september/kingdom-of-god-and-supreme-court-of-united-states.html

The Kingdom of God and the Supreme Court of the United States

Thoughts on the kingdom of God and the common good.

The phrase, “The Kingdom of God,” has been in the news recently given that Amy Coney Barrett is on President Trump’s short list of nominees to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died last week.

As one can imagine given our tense and toxic political environment, many Democrats are up in arms about the prospect of President Trump nominating a Supreme Court Justice between now and the election on November 3rd. Many of them, including former Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee, Joe Biden, believe that Trump should postpone the nomination until after the election.

Not only are Democrats upset that President Trump may proceed with a nomination, they are uncomfortable with Amy Coney Barrett, the supposed front runner for the nomination.

Why would many Democrats be uncomfortable with Barrett? Aside from being mentored by Antonin Scalia and a proponent of originalism, statutory interpretation, and stare decisis, she is a devout Roman Catholic. For Barrett', her faith intersects with her vocation. While speaking to graduates of the Notre Dame Law School years ago, Professor Barrett addressed what it meant to be a “different kind of lawyer.” She stated, a “legal career is but a means to an end. . . and that end is building the kingdom of God."

In short, the language of building the kingdom of God has people uncomfortable.

It should not—it is basic language used across different Christian traditions and denominations.

What is the Kingdom of God?

The “Kingdom of God”—or simply put, the rule and reign of God—is something that practically every Christian tradition embraces, albeit with a wide range of understanding and application.

For brevity and simplicity, I want to note four elements to what constitutes the Kingdom of God.

First, the King.

In the Kingdom of God, God—or YHWH—is King. And in a kingdom, everything revolves around the king; in Scripture, that means the glory of YHWH. As the Scriptures unfold, YHWH is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. Now, Jesus more specifically, is the King in the Kingdom of God.

Second, the domain.

There is a territory over which the king reigns. In the Gospel of Matthew, the recurring phrase, “Kingdom of Heaven,” is used to describe what Jesus inaugurated in his coming. Elsewhere, it is referred to the “Kingdom of God.” In addition, Jesus, in his teaching on prayer, instructs his disciples at one point to pray, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”

Jesus gives more detail to, and is the personification of, the Old Testament teaching that God is bringing his rule to earth. In creation, God established earth as his domain over which he rules. Isaiah 66:1 states, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.” God created earth as a domain to extend his reign.

Third, the citizens of the kingdom.

A note that combines this element with the second element is that in creating Adam and Eve as his image bearers, God establishes the fact that earth is his. It was common in antiquity for earthly kings to erect images of themselves and place them in far flung corners of their kingdom signifying that domain is under their reign.

Throughout Scripture God seeks to be in personal communion and covenant with his people. Israel was to be God’s people, living in the Promised Land, to serve as a “kingdom of priests.”

In the New Testament, Jesus (both the better Adam and Israel) through his death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Spirit, gives birth to the church. The church isn’t the Kingdom, it is a representation (or reflection) of the fully coming Kingdom. Nevertheless, they are citizens of the already but not yet Kingdom. In Revelation we read, “Look, God’s dwelling is with humanity, and he will live with them. They will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them and will be their God” (Rev 21:3).

Fourth, the rule of life.

The king reigns through a set of laws and statues that govern the people of his land—for his glory. Also, these laws are meant to reflect the nature, character, and attributes of the king and his kingdom.

A Theological Understanding and Application of God’s Kingdom

Theological interpretations and applications of the Kingdom of God are vast, and this one brief article will hardly touch on them. In my book, Subversive Kingdom, I say much more.

One of the more common understandings of the Kingdom of God is the Two Kingdom view (which still has its nuances) originally articulated by Augustine in The City of God and later developed by reformers like Martin Luther.

Two Kingdoms adherents generally claim the Bible teaches that God rules all of creation in two distinct ways; one through the “common kingdom” in which all people operate by natural revelation, and the second through the “redemptive kingdom” in which Christians are ruled by special revelation. Two Kingdom adherents believe that Christians should not impose biblical standards on society but instead appeal to common understandings of the good, the true, and the beautiful shared by all people. Within the realm of the “redemptive kingdom,” they hold that believers are nurtured through the church by means of preaching, the sacraments, and participating in Christian community. (See Tim Keller, Center Church, 194–217).

The church as citizens of the “already but not yet” kingdom participates in the mission of God—to redeem a people for himself from every tribe, nation, and tongue. The church participates by sharing and showing the gospel of King Jesus, the Spirit of God works subversively through believers to expose the darkness, to convict sinners, to invite people into becoming a new creation in Christ, and to catch a glimpse of the future consummated Kingdom of God.

Concern Over Building God’s Kingdom

This understanding of the Kingdom of God doesn’t describe every tradition’s view—I don’t know if it represents the view of Amy Coney Barrett. However, I tend not to use the word “build” in this context, but I do know many who would eagerly support a Supreme Court nominee who sees their vocation as a platform to engage as a citizen of the Kingdom of God.

Many would celebrate such an appointment, while others—perhaps especially less religious and/or more secular people—would be concerned about a judge or justice using such language. It seems Washington Post writer Ron Charles is concerned as he tweeted, “Amy Coney Barrett, the judge at the top of Trump’s list to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has said we should always remember that ‘a legal career is but a means to an end… and that end is building the Kingdom of God.'”

So, yes, there are political differences here for many reasons. My intent is not to address all of those in this short article. However, the concern about kingdom language is also worth exploring, as I’ve tried to do here. Yes, for some, “building the kingdom of God” would be seen as an obstacle. But as my good friend Karen Swallow Prior tweeted in response to Charles, “Better to appoint/elect people who want to make hell on earth, I guess?”

For me, teaching at a school with the motto, “for Christ and Kingdom,” this language is normal and widespread in the Christian church. If you want to oppose this nomination, I hope it is not because of this basic Christian terminology and emphasis.

My prayer echoes that of our King, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” If God chooses to answer such a prayer during this transition period between inauguration and consummation of the Kingdom of God, I know that life will be valued, morality grounded, equality advanced, justice served, religious freedom upheld, and God will be honored. And these are the things that at her very root, makes America great.

Ed Stetzer is executive director of the Wheaton College Billy Graham Center, serves as a dean at Wheaton College, and publishes church leadership resources through Mission Group. The Exchange Team contributed to this article and has updated the article.

Josh Laxton currently serves as the Assistant Director of the Wheaton College Billy Graham Center, Lausanne North American Coordinator at Wheaton College. He has a Ph.D. in North American Missiology from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

patrick jane · « **Reply #99 on:** September 24, 2020, 02:05:13 pm »

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/september-web-only/supreme-court-evangelical-issues-ruth-bader-ginsburg-trump.html

Why the Supreme Court Makeup Matters Beyond Abortion

Legal experts cite religious freedom and free speech among the major issues for evangelicals in a post–Ruth Bader Ginsburg court.

Last week’s death of Ruth Bader Ginsberg represents the third opportunity for President Donald Trump to nominate a Supreme Court justice.

A third of evangelicals by belief cited Supreme Court nominees and abortion stance as reasons for voting for Trump in 2016. Many evangelicals and pro-life Americans have celebrated the possibility that another conservative justice could shift the Court toward overturning Roe v. Wade and reshaping abortion law in the country. Yet the new makeup of the Court will address crucial issues for the church that extend far beyond abortion.

CT asked legal experts how a new Supreme Court appointment replacing Ginsburg stands to affect evangelicals outside of Roe v. Wade. Here are their responses, calling out issues such as religious freedom, racial equality, child protection, and free speech.

Barry P. McDonald, law professor at Pepperdine University:

As it stands, the Supreme Court is controlled by a majority of five solid conservative justices who either have a strong record of supporting religious freedom rights or give every indication that they will develop such a record. If President Trump succeeds in appointing Justice Ginsburg’s successor, that will likely add one more justice to this coalition. While an additional vote is not necessary to maintain this trend, it could prove important to religious freedom proponents in cases where Chief Justice John Roberts might moderate his vote in an attempt to shield the Court as an institution from charges that it has become too political and divisive (or where any conservative justice moderates his or her vote for whatever reason). This is most likely to occur in cases where religious beliefs might conflict with laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual and gender orientation. Indeed, both Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch recently alluded to such future contests in voting to interpret federal workplace laws as barring such discrimination.

Kim Colby, director of the Christian Legal Society’s Center of Law and Religious Freedom:
Justice Ginsburg’s replacement potentially could provide a more secure footing for our basic human right of religious freedom. In 27 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg heard over 30 religious freedom cases. Unfortunately, her support for religious freedom was lackluster.

Justice Ginsburg previously voted in favor of religious schools’ freedom to choose their teachers but then voted against that right in a recent case. She voted once for—and three times against—robust application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Her two votes in favor of prisoners’ religious freedom, as well as a Muslim employee’s right to wear a hijab, were commendable. But four times, she voted to uphold the government’s exclusion of religious speech from the public square.

Justice Ginsburg advanced a theory of the Establishment Clause that excluded religious students from government programs funding education. Several times she voted to remove religious symbols from public property. When comparing her votes in recent cases to votes by Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the comparison suggests that someone nominated by President Trump likely will be a good steward of religious freedom.

Lynne Marie Kohm, law professor at Regent University:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement can make a dynamic difference for America’s children in three key cases—one past, one present, and one (hopefully) future.

Past: Transgender rights—Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. The Court held that firing an individual for being transgender violates Title VII. Ginsburg’s replacement could alter future transgender rulings, particularly as biological female athletes seek to protect their rights in girls’ sports.

Present: Foster care—Fulton v. Philadelphia. First Amendment rights of Christians who provide foster care are at stake as the Court soon determines whether the government can condition a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on practices that contradict its religious beliefs.

Future (hopefully): Child pornography. In 2002, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition struck down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 as overbroad, giving a tremendous win to the adult-entertainment industry. Child pornography has since proliferated. Children need protections that a Ginsburg replacement could help deliver.

Beyond Roe, American evangelicals want to see all children protected, born and unborn.

Thomas Berg, law professor at the University of St. Thomas:
One obvious evangelical priority for the Court’s new justice (beyond abortion) is religious freedom, which the Court already strongly supports. Majorities of 5–7 justices have protected religious schools’ right to hire the religion teachers they choose, employers’ right to object to covering employees’ contraception, and families’ right to choose religious schools for their children and still receive government educational assistance. Justice Ginsburg dissented from all those rights; the new nominee will strengthen them.

But the nominee should also be questioned about another priority: racial equality. Christians must care about this because racism denies that some fellow humans have their full God-given dignity. And justices should care because the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment was meant to eliminate practices that had kept black people constricted even after their formal enslavement ended. Republican appointees typically commit to enforcing a provision’s “original meaning.” The next justice should apply the amendment vigorously to racially unjust practices of our day.

Carl H. Esbeck, law professor emeritus at the University of Missouri:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an effective legal activist, first for the ACLU and later as a high court justice. To admire her work depends on whether one believes the role of a judge is to align the law with one’s sense of justice or is it to subordinate the self to the nation’s organic documents and the rule of law. Unlike Justice Ginsburg, we can aspire to a successor who will interpret the US. Constitution in accord with the original meaning of the adopted text. I also hope for reconsideration of the free speech case of Hastings Chapter of the Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. Authored by Justice Ginsburg, this was a 5-4 decision denying student religious organizations access to meeting space at a state university campus without first agreeing that there be no qualification that the organization’s student officers and members conform to a statement of faith.

Rena M. Lindevaldsen, law professor at Liberty University:

Conservative justices view the Constitution as a source of, and limit on, their power, recognizing that the separation of powers best protects our God-given liberties and that the Constitution contains an amendment provision to make changes when necessary. Liberal justices circumvent that amendment provision and simply change or create law to suit what they believe the culture desires. But when those justices promote the “right” of people to do whatever pleases them amidst a culture that promotes “godlessness and wickedness” (Rom. 1:18), government punishes those who proclaim the unchanging truth of Scripture.

That punishment takes many forms, including firing employees who will not promote a particular agenda, arresting sidewalk counselors, singling out churches for censorship, labeling the truth of Scripture as hate speech, or stripping people of the right to self-defense against a despotic government. Appointing the right justice helps us, as Justice Scalia said, guard “against the black-robed supremacy.”

patrick jane · « **Reply #100 on:** September 27, 2020, 08:21:57 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxkmKPcISME

patrick jane · « **Reply #101 on:** September 27, 2020, 08:22:28 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWK56l2VaLY

patrick jane · « **Reply #102 on:** September 28, 2020, 10:10:19 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV7oDl8yDZk

patrick jane · « **Reply #103 on:** October 01, 2020, 07:17:25 pm »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wGaZMqeEvc

Patrick Jane Forums | Anthropology & Theology

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

Author Topic: Democrats Try To "FIX" The 2020 Election - Fake Ballots (Read 9282 times)

patrick jane

Re: Election 2020 | Can Democrats Take Back The White House?

patrick jane

Re: Election 2020 | Can Democrats Take Back The White House?

patrick jane

Re: Election 2020 | Can Democrats Take Back The White House?

patrick jane

Re: Election 2020 | Can Democrats Take Back The White House?

patrick jane

Re: Election 2020 | Can Democrats Take Back The White House?

patrick jane

Re: Election 2020 | Can Democrats Take Back The White House?

patrick jane

Re: Election 2020 | Can Democrats Take Back The White House?

patrick jane

Re: Election 2020 | Can Democrats Take Back The White House?

patrick jane

Re: Election 2020 | Can Democrats Take Back The White House?

patrick jane

Re: Democrats Try To "FIX" The 2020 Election - Fake Ballots

patrick jane

Re: Democrats Try To "FIX" The 2020 Election - Fake Ballots

patrick jane

Re: Democrats Try To "FIX" The 2020 Election - Fake Ballots

patrick jane

Re: Democrats Try To "FIX" The 2020 Election - Fake Ballots

Related Topics

Recent Topics