shiloh357

Royal Member
  • Content count

    40,595
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    265

shiloh357 last won the day on June 2

shiloh357 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

30,291 Excellent

About shiloh357

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 03/07/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology.

Recent Profile Visitors

19,096 profile views
  1. It just gets better and better.
  2. Breaking with tradition, the White House under President Donald Trump did not host an iftar dinner, the meal Muslims eat to break their daily fast during Ramadan. The dinner, which has been often attended by prominent members of the U.S. Muslim community, began in 1996 during former President Bill Clinton’s White House tenure and continued through the subsequent Bush and Obama administrations. But Trump and first lady Melania simply issued a brief statement Saturday that offered “warm greetings” to Muslims celebrating Eid al-Fitr, which marks the close of Ramadan, Islam’s holy month of fasting. https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-becomes-first-president-170610643.html
  3. No, that is not enough. You have to believe what the Bible says about who Jesus is. The Bible makes it clear that Jesus is God. If you are not believing in Jesus who is as both God and man, you are not believing in the true Jesus. Your faith is in a different Jesus, a Jesus of your own invention. And that Jesus will not save you. Any other Jesus than Jesus who is the God/man, is an idol. Oh I am very clear when I say that Jesus is God. I am clear enough that you reject it. That is false teaching. Jesus never went to Hell, and the devil never took him there. You are promoting a false gospel. Jesus never died spiritually. Jesus' resurrection is proof that God the Father was satisfied with Jesus' sacrifice. And it is proof that Jesus did not die spiritually. As God Jesus cannot die spiritually.
  4. It’s permissible in the United States to decorate police cars with rainbow flags to celebrate gay pride, but it’s not permissible to decorate police cars with Bible verses honoring law enforcement officers. Click here to for a free subscription to Todd's newsletter - a must-read for Conservatives! The Houston Police Dept. is debuting a “Pride Car” for the city’s gay pride parade, the Houston Chronicle reports. Police Chief Art Acevedo is downright giddy about the new rainbow cruiser and the parade. The newspaper reports the chief “strongly encouraged” top police brass to join him in the march. "By actually participating ... we send a very powerful message that we're an inclusive department," he said, "where every segment of society is welcome, is respected, and will be protected by the Houston Police Department," he told the newspaper. The rank and file, however, are not so appreciative of the police chief’s strong-arm tactics. “Our duty is to protect and serve, not participate in an event that completely goes against our religious beliefs,” one unidentified commander told the newspaper. Houston is not the first American city to place gay pride decals on taxpayer-funded vehicles. The New York City Police Dept. debuted its gay pride patrol car in 2016, UnicornBooty.com reports. The NYPD replaced its slogan – courtesy, professionalism, respect – for “pride-centric” words like pride, equality, and peace.” “How fabulous is that,” the website asked. Pittsburgh Police Chief Scott Schubert directed officers to display gay pride decals on their patrol cars – a decision that rankled the Fraternal Order of Police. “We have a variety of taxpayers in the city of Pittsburgh with different viewpoints, which can create controversy if support for different events is shown,” FOP President Robert Swartzwelder told television station KDKA. Chief Schubert said the decals show their police department is tolerant. “To be honest I was appalled when I saw the statement by the Fraternal Order of Police,” he told the television station. “It just goes against what we are trying to accomplish with the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police and police departments around the city.” Houston’s decision stands in stark contrast to an issue I wrote about in May – when the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Dept. was ordered to remove decals bearing a portion of a well-known Bible verse from patrol cars. The decal, which had been posted on vehicles, bore the words, “Blessed are the peacemakers…Matthew 5-9.” “Our intent was, and still is, to honor our fellow brothers and sisters in law enforcement,” Sheriff C.H. Partin told me. Different city, different rules. I understand that. And some might even say it’s unfair to draw the comparison. But I really was struck by something the unnamed commander said -- about being strong-armed into marching in a parade in spite of his religious objections. The commander has a valid point. However, these days tolerance and diversity is no longer extended to people of faith. Those who follow teachings of Christ have effectively been shoved into a closet -- and that's nothing to be proud of. http://www.toddstarnes.com/column/its-okay-to-decorate-a-police-car-with-rainbow-flags-but-not-bible-verses
  5. Jesus as God's Son is God. Jesus is fully God and fully man. Jesus never denied being God in whole or in part. Yes, one must believe Jesus is God. That is essential biblical doctrine. Rejecting the biblical truth that Jesus is God places one outside of the Kingdom of God.
  6. Only God can pay the penalty for man's sin. Jesus was truly man and truly God. Yes Jesus died, and yes He was resurrected. That doesn't mitigate against Him being God.
  7. For Jesus to be the Savior, Jesus needs to be God.
  8. Well, you need to hop on your private plane and fly up here and try some!
  9. “It’s a bellwether for what the Democratic Party is going to be about,” Democratic National Committee boss Tom Perez boasted. That was back in March and the Dems had just begun their frantic spending spree in Georgia’s Sixth. By the time it was over, Jon Ossoff, an awkward immature hipster who didn’t even live in the district, had raised $23.6 million and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had burned through another $5 million. Other groups threw in around $2.6 million to achieve absolutely nothing. $31 million had been spent and wasted on history’s most expensive congressional election. And the Dem experts congratulated themselves that they had lost by a smaller margin than in the past. They had spent $30 million more than in their first special election in Kansas to gain a whole 1%. Just as after their previous special election defeats, the charts and graphs came out comparing their performance to those of previous elections. Never mind that turnout differs dramatically during presidential and special elections. Or that spending $31 million to lose by 6 percent is a disaster. What the Democrat Party really was going to be about was setting piles of money on fire. In Montana, a quixotic bid by Rob Quist had garnered $5 million in donations and another $1 million in outside spending. Even after a stunt by a Guardian reporter caused the Republican candidate to lose many of his newspaper endorsements, Quist barely ended up with 44 percent. The special election frenzy began in Kansas when the left decided that Rep. Mike Pompeo’s open seat might be winnable. After Trump’s victory, angry Dems decided to pour money into the campaign. Democrat James Thompson raised around $832,000, but Republican Ron Estes won by 7 percent. Or single digits. And the gold rush was on. The special election margin was compared to Trump’s margin of victory. The entrails and tea leaves were read. And the consultants declared it a referendum on Trump. Millions from blue states flowed into special elections in red states to prove that Trump had lost public support. The deeper theory behind this spending spree was that setbacks in safe districts would lead the GOP to abandon Trump. And that played into feverish conspiracy theories about the 25th Amendment or Senate Republicans turning on Trump in time for impeachment that had gone mainstream on the left. But after losing 45 to 52 in Kansas for well under a million, they spent $6 million to lose 50 to 44 in Montana and $31 million to lose 47 to 53 in Georgia. An extra $5 million or $31 million had just bought them another 1 percent in Montana or Georgia. Dems have consistently managed to lose these special elections by around 7 percent. All that varied was how many millions they spent to lose by 7 percent. The 7 percent solution was the sucker bet. It was the cocaine that the left began injecting to cope with the psychological pain of Hillary’s defeat. 7 percent was seductive: a single digit number that could be shifted with the right amount of money. It hovered on the horizon like a mirage in the desert. But no matter how much money they spent, the seats they were trying to buy remained out of reach. Behind the wasted tsunami of cash, lurked greed and some elaborate social engineering. The Democratic National Committee is badly short of cash. The special elections were its best hope of reviving its fundraising. Unfortunately its fundraising totals continued to fall instead. The DNC didn’t really believe that it could win the special elections, but it needed elections to spur fundraising. Most of Ossoff’s big haul came through ActBlue. The left-wing fundraising setup has been a cash bonanza for candidates. Almost $7 million poured into Ossoff’s war chest in one month through ActBlue. There were multiple fundraisers for Ossoff through ActBlue with various forms of legitimacy. Even Alan Grayson, the bizarrely sleazy ex-Florida congressman, got into the act by fundraising for Ossoff on ActBlue and then informing donors, “Your contribution will benefit Alan Grayson.” Quist raised millions for his doomed race in Montana through ActBlue. The ActBlue setup made it easy to nationalize races. It was part of why Ossoff had hauled in more money from California than from Georgia. And it has been a fantastic engine for parting lefty fools from their money. The “grassroots” fundraising benefits the same old Dem campaign infrastructure. Ossoff spent $11 million of his haul on ads. Much of his campaign cash flowed to Canal Partners Media, Mothership Strategies and Mission Control Inc. Over $5 million went through these firms and others just during the opening round of the election. That gave him something in common with Quist’s campaign where at least $1.2 million went through Canal and $286K to Mothership. During the Dem primaries, Canal Partners Media was accused of setting up “Old Towne Media” as a front to hide its relationship with Bernie Sanders. The Canal front billed the Sanders campaign over $82 million. Meanwhile the real Canal was placing a “dark money” ad in support of Bernie Sanders. Canal has complicated ties to Bernie Sanders’ wife who had been accused of profiting from media ad buys. Behind Quist and Ossoff was the same old Democrat infrastructure. Behind the illusion of grassroots campaigns and small donors was the same old machine. The special elections scam was set up to funnel money from angry lefties to the infrastructure. Some $40 million was burned through on a dead end program. But it went to all the right people on the left. Ossoff’s campaign was the final leg of the scam. He was the least promising candidate of all the Dems in all the red state special elections. But his backers weren’t really trying to win in Georgia, but to raise money in California and then take it back to Washington D.C. And Ossoff was perfectly suited for that. That’s why the most money was raised and spent on his campaign. Like Bernie Sanders, he was never really supposed to win. He was sucker bait. And the suckers bit hard enough to make a special election in a conservative district the most expensive House race in history. (emphasis mine) Ossoff was a great way for Washington D.C. campaign pros to extract money from Bay Area lefties. His campaign had nine times more individual donations from California than from Georgia. He had almost four times more donations from nine Bay Area counties than all of Georgia. The Dems lost and they’re laughing all the way to the bank. There was much fussing in the Bay Area over snarky Republican ads in the race taking potshots at them. If they had any sense, they would be far more offended by the greedy contempt of their political allies. The Democrats have gone far to the left partly because of a profitable machine for transmuting the left’s worst instincts into money. The Washington Post scored record profits by tempting lefties with fake news promises of impeachment. The special elections scam offered lefties the seductive idea that throwing away millions on a doomed cause would somehow reverse Trump’s victory. Hey, it worked for Jill Stein, didn’t it? Angry, emotional people do stupid things. Like wear pink hats and shout in public about their private parts, subscribe to the Washington Post because they think it can deliver Watergate on demand or plow millions into backing an annoying hipster with no credentials in Newt Gingrich’s old district. Jon Ossoff’s slogan was “Make Trump Furious”. He failed even at that. But it isn’t Trump’s fury his backers were interested in. Instead they succeeded in cashing in on the angry stupid rage of the left. http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267076/how-dems-burned-40-mil-lose-4-elections-and-scam-daniel-greenfield
  10. Isn't this crazy. We have been inundated with calls for Trump's impeachment over this Russian thing, for months now. They have been trying to pin this on Trump and all along. But the DNC was cool with Russian meddling when they thought Hillary was going to win. Now that the Clinton camp needs to blame someone, anyone, but Hillary for her loss, the Russians became just one many scapegoats to share the blame.
  11. No, conservatives don't put on plays depicting the murders of Democratic leaders for liberals to crash. So this is not tit for tat.
  12. He didn't cover up any lies. He exposed the lies that media was putting out against him. The possibility of tapes existing meant Comey could not lie to Congress. It wasn't a chance he could afford to take.
  13. Oh we know the cause. Trump fired Comey because Comey would not exonerate him in public. Comey, by his own admission, told Trump three times that he was not under investigation. Trump wanted Comey to publicly exonerate him and inform the country that he was not under investigation. Comey would not inform the media that Trump was not under investigation and knowingly allowed the media to continue putting out a narrative that Trump was under either intelligence or criminal investigation. The false narrative that Trump was under investigation was keeping Congress from wanting to work with him and was also overshadowing his agenda and anything he was doing was not being covered. The only thing the media outlets were talking about was impeaching Trump based on that false narrative. The fact that Comey was willingly and knowingly allowing it to continue is justification for firing him.
  14. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys, amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News confirms. Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People's United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution. According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders' office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan. Burlington attorney and Sanders supporter Rich Cassidy has reportedly been hired to represent Sen. Sanders. And high-profile Washington defense attorney Larry Robbins, who counseled Libby "Scooter" Robbins, former Chief of Staff for the Vice President, is protecting Jane Sanders. Ms. Sanders' push for the liberal arts college's costly land acquisition was cited in a press release by the college when it shut down in 2016. Brady Toensing of Burlington, the man responsible for the claims filed to the U.S. attorney for Vermont, was a chairman for the Trump campaign in his state. "I filed a request for an investigation in January 2016 and an investigation appears to have been started right away," he said in an email to CBS News. "It was started under President Obama, his Attorney General, and his U.S. Attorney, all of whom are Democrats." "My only hope is for a fair, impartial, and thorough investigation," Toensing added. Weaver told CBS News that Toensing's claim that Sen. Sanders used his influence to lobby for the loan is a "political charge" that is "baseless" and "false." And as for the claim that Ms. Sanders manipulated the loan application, Weaver said, "The loan was approved by the financial board at the college." Sen. Sanders, formerly mayor of Burlington, Vermont's largest city, regards the claims as a political game levied against him after his run for president in the 2016 primary election, a platform which has transformed the small-state senator into an influential voice in American liberal politics. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-fbi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/