Jump to content


Member Since 10 Feb 2007
Offline Last Active Private

#392485 The Coming November Wars

Posted by HappyChristian on Today, 09:26 AM

We already have a president who dictates by executive order...with some very serious ones lined up for after Nov. 4.


If Mitch McConnell becomes majority leader, the Senate will be as ineffective as the House has been under Boehner.  McConnell has reversed his stance on immigration reform and repealing BOcare just in the last couple of days due to the fact that he is in the race of his life. He and several other congressmen who have been in there for dogs' years are neck-and-neck with the Dems for more than one reason.


1. Their constituents are tired of what they've not been doing.

2. Dems are working overtime at voter fraud (from machines recording wrong votes to illegals [and this has been caught on video] being urged to vote).

3. "Independents" or Libertarians getting in and staying in the race, even when the GOP nominee is a constitutionalist (and, yes, there have been a number this cycle...most just haven't heard about them) and so siphoning votes from them.


Too many people - Rand Paul among them - believed that the seats needed to be "protected" by making sure the old guard won the seats (in the case of Thad Cochran, even at the expense of cheating and lying themselves) in the primaries. So they endorsed the old guard, sent mega money to them, etc. They won the primaries, but are not running away with the general.  I believe it's because people are just tired of the garbage.


The same will hold true in the next presidential election - if there is one. If an old guard gets the nominee for the GOP - by that I mean Romney, Jeb Bush, Huckabee, etc - Hillary will win. And the slide will continue... 

#392484 Movie Review - Fireproof

Posted by HappyChristian on Today, 09:15 AM

We've seen it and liked it (so much that we bought it). As was mentioned, there are things in there that make one shake their heads, but it's a good movie overall. Although I don't agree with Kirk Cameron on all points of doctrine, I think highly of his testimony.  The fact that he wouldn't kiss the woman who played his wife is impressive, IMO, due to Hollywood culture.  The woman he kisses in the movie is his actual wife - and I always figured that they chose the woman who portrayed the movie wife because his actual wife could stand in for the kiss.  That might seem trite to some, but in the rampant and casual sexual time we live, to have someone who is in Hollywood stand firm about not kissing - even in acting - someone not his wife is refreshing to me.


I like the lessons of the movie, too, as does my hubby. 

#392436 I Am Out Of Here! Goodbye!

Posted by HappyChristian on Yesterday, 03:08 PM

You know what, WC - you bring it on yourself when you act the way you have. It's quite telling that the folks you line up with are those who seem to want to engender strife - all in the name of "wanting balanced biblical discussion".  Be warned. "They" are watching you.

#392426 Hi Everyone

Posted by HappyChristian on Yesterday, 01:41 PM

Okay, Washed Clean. Enough.  Pork, as salyan has mentioned, please change the name. The taint of the world is not on Christians who don't appreciate double entendre but rather on those who want to skate as close to the world as possible and claim scriptural support to do so.  Unity is only possible when each person is looking at things through scripture and not through feelings.


As to your attempt at rebuking moderators, WC,  yes they are present. And had you taken the time to read, you would have noted that one already spoke - letting Pork know his name needs to be changed.  If, as he said he isn't wanting to be offensive, he will do so.


Sadly, this thread is closed because some folk seem to want to use it as a forum to argue.  Al did us a favor by pointing out the fact that the name is a vulgar euphemism. Dave told us what it was (although I think we all knew), so obviously it's used that way in Australia as well.


Pork, change your name. To something that is not a vulgar double-tongued phrase/word.  Thank you.

#392309 Pantry ABC

Posted by HappyChristian on 28 October 2014 - 02:32 PM

Zero candy bars

#392299 Hello Brethren!

Posted by HappyChristian on 28 October 2014 - 12:50 PM

This was - the fellow that preached it took it from the direction of it being a sin not to recognize that everything we have is from God...as I said, I don't remember the whole of it, but that is what the evangelist was aiming for.

#391817 Woman Who Slit Police Officer's Throat Acquitted

Posted by HappyChristian on 21 October 2014 - 12:42 PM

No, it would never be that, SFIC - even when I'm angry with him.  :ROFL:

#391800 Nonhuman "rights" Soon To Be A Reality, I Betcha

Posted by HappyChristian on 21 October 2014 - 09:30 AM

No, I'm sure they won't advocate lions and tigers having rights yet, simply on the basis that they believe chimps are our relatives. 


I agree that they should be put back into the wild if possible, but I don't have a problem with zoos if the animals are treated right. They are supposed to be under our dominion and zoos can give us lots of information about them. 


Totally agree no freedom to walk the streets!  Next will be the "right" to marry them...of course, there have been people around the world who've "married" an animal for one reason or another. 


Sin is sick. Unchecked sin is revolting.

#391761 Sermon Supoenaes

Posted by HappyChristian on 20 October 2014 - 01:14 PM

Somehow I have the feeling that Christians aren't going to get the same treatment at others in jail...

#391758 Sermon Supoenaes

Posted by HappyChristian on 20 October 2014 - 12:39 PM

That works, thanks.

#391747 Prayer For My Daughter

Posted by HappyChristian on 20 October 2014 - 10:36 AM

:clapping:  :godisgood:   Such thrilling news, Miss Daisy. God is good, God is merciful.  Will be praying.

#391743 Sermon Supoenaes

Posted by HappyChristian on 20 October 2014 - 09:55 AM

Carl, the challenge to the bathroom bill is based upon the fact that there were more than the required number for a petition.  There were many thousands handed in, and those that were not legitimate were discounted. Even at that, that left a few hundred more than the required amount. The rub came in, though, when the city attorney through out ALL of the signatures, and thus the referendum was shot down. Illegally, I might add. The city secretary (I'm not sure of her actual title) who is responsible for counting and approving the signatures did so.  The city attorney had no legal right, nor any business, coming in and tossing them, thus effectively saying the people of the city had no right to vote on whether or not to allow transgenders in opposite sex bathrooms.


Of course the mayor isn't claiming she's going after them politically...who in their right mind would claim that?  Carl, I realize you don't live in America, but please know this: our freedoms and liberties have been under attack for many years. God-haters are trying to remove Him from every aspect of life.  And, sadly, too many Christians are going along with the idea that Christians should stay out of certain areas (completely backward of how this country was founded).  I'm sorry, but the subpoenas don't have to center in a lawsuit whereby the politics or not of pastors is involved...all that is necessary is for them to demand them, in the name of the particular lawsuit here (bathroom bill) as a way to control. For what reason, other than scrutiny and attempt at control, did the subpoena state that all sermons that mentioned the mayor must be given?  That has nothing to do with the bill. For what reason did the subpoenas state that all sermons that mentioned homosexuality must be given?  Again, that has nothing to do with the bill. Etc.  You may think that it is relevant, but it isn't.  Now, even though I still think it would be wrong, had the subpoenas only requested communication which actually mentioned the petitions, perhaps things would be fine.  In fact, here is what a law professor had to say:




University of Houston law professor Peter Linzer says the city reached too far in issuing the subpoenas. One subpoena sent to Pastor Steve Riggle, for example, asks for “all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to [the equal rights ordinance], the petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity.” However, Linzer says it wouldn’t impinge on the pastors’ First Amendment rights if the city only asked only for sermons or speeches related to the signature drive. “Let’s assume they gave instructions to cheat,” Linzer says. “That would be relevant speech and I don’t see how they would have any First Amendment protection for that.”


There is a very real effort here in America to de-God everything.  Things like this simply are part of it.  


Here's Ted Cruz with some good words...



In all actuality, people can rightly sue the mayor and city attorney for violating city charter by negating the petitions for referendum.  

#391616 Sermon Supoenaes

Posted by HappyChristian on 17 October 2014 - 04:17 PM

This is the same as the point you made earlier, Happy Christian, and I want to ask, where is this woman saying this in that tweet? I read that quote and interpreted it as meaning that if the pastors' sermons are relevant to a court case then they are not immune to being investigated for that purpose. Where did she mention the court case in her tweet? She was defiantly stating that she has the right to demand their sermons if she deems what they say to be political speech.  You might argue that I don't know her state of mind when she said it, but, really - her wording is pretty obviously thumbing her nose...


But this journalist is basically saying that the mayor is stating publicly that she's issued the subpoenas because she is trying to prosecute the pastors for bringing politics into their sermons. But that's a ridiculous interpretation because the stated reason for the subpoenas is a lawsuit over the petition. Whatever secret motives we might--perhaps rightly--ascribe to the council's actions, those aren't going to be stated ones are they?

The amended subpoenas are now calling the sermons speeches...and are demanding all sermons related to HERO (the bathroom bill) and 17 other categories of information


From Todd Starnes:


According to the Houston Chronicle, Mayor Parker said on Friday, "We don't need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston, and it was never the intention of the city of Houston to intrude on any matters of faith or to get between a pastor and their parishioners."

Folks, that's a load of grade A fertilizer. 

"We don't want their sermons, we want the instructions on the petition process. That's always what we wanted and, again, they knew that's what we wanted because that's the subject of the lawsuit," she said.

There's just one problem, Madam Mayor, the pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. And if you weren't looking for their sermons, why did you put that in the subpoena. 

The pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. The subpoenas are an overreach. The relevance is that government servants do not have the constitutional (read: legal) authority to demand sermons just because they might mention something political.


Subpoenas are a way to bring evidence to a trial.  But here we get to the sticky widget again. The pastors aren't party to the lawsuit. Neither are their sermons. Whether they mention the mayor or not in a sermon, a text, an email, has nothing to do with the bathroom bill.



#391605 Sermon Supoenaes

Posted by HappyChristian on 17 October 2014 - 03:12 PM

Yes, we should pray for them.  But you are wrong that politics shouldn't be our business. God gave us the rights that are guaranteed - and that are being trampled.  To sit back and do nothing (as in the case of this bathroom bill...which would allow pedophiles who want to claim to be transgendered access to children to whom they are sexually attracted) is to fail in our stewardship of this country God gave us. I realize, Invicta, you are not in America and your politics is a bit different. But once upon a time even Englishmen would have stepped up and protested this.


God does protect. But bad things happen to good people. And when good people sit back and allow heinous rulings and bills to stand, God is not honored.

#391600 Sermon Supoenaes

Posted by HappyChristian on 17 October 2014 - 01:52 PM

With their reactions, backpedaling, changing of terms, etc., I don't think it's lazy secretaries or incompetence...I believe it is a direct frontal assault on religious liberty - intentionally so - by someone who hates Christianity.  


The sermons (speeches) that are being subpeonad are those that mention the mayor, homosexuality or gender identity.  It's an egregious overreach, no matter their explanation.

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500