Predaceous Preclusion

Have you ever awakened examining a word that you have never used or heard used but leaves an incessantly nagging urge to examine? I sometimes wonder why the Lord does this. Predaceous [ie. Living on prey] Preclusion [ie. The act of shutting out or preventing of access or possession; the state of being prevented from entering, possession or enjoyment.] defines the very nature of the draconian dictates being imposed upon us by an outrageously erroneous predicant.

Before we start we need to re-examine the founding fathers under girding defense of the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness clause in the Declaration of Independence. “The Rights of the Colonists as Men” authored by Samuel Adams begins as follows. “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. All men have the right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and to enter into another.”

John Locke, author of “Of Civil Government” in 1689 asserts, “the great and Chief End, therefore of Men’s uniting into Commonwealth, at putting themselves under Government, is the preservation of their property.”

Thomas Jefferson, in his first draft of the “Declaration of dependence also penned those infamous words “Life, Liberty, and Property.” “The commonality between these men and others involved the formation of our government was that these rights were “God given.”

The best definition of property I could find was that of James Madison’s essay entitled “Property.”

 “Property… In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandise, or money, is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them…He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to employ them. In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights…Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…Conscience is the most sacred of all property…

 That’s a lot of property talk going on there.  The “Sons of liberty” were not marching through the streets shouting “life, liberty and property” solely because of that minuscule tax by today’s standard, but by the absence of representation and a voice in the governing of their affairs and a right to their property as Madison defined it. The modern Marxist of today, true to their father, believes in the abolition of property. Due to the infiltration of their ideology into our government we see that rather than protecting property our government expropriates it by punitive taxation. We’ve seen bureaucratic agencies like the IRS weaponized.  Under a democrat administration we’ll likely see the repetition of Waco atrocities veiled under the guise of justice and protection, and we’ll be able to watch it on TV. We will relinquish our rights and properties to worldwide bureaucratic agencies with no recourse. Black Americans will remain slaves and pawns to their masters in the democratically controlled cities. Unborn babies will remain property to dispose of as desired. That will be the only demented sense of property left under the guise of choice. The guilty [democrat] will be innocent seemingly because their finger is not on the trigger. They just provide the hit man. We’ve devolved a long way since the founding of this nation. It’s not a surprise, nor would be to the founding fathers. They gave us a Republic with a firm Biblical foundation giving us the three pillars that would support it. They purposely decided against a democracy because they always implode. Ask Benjamin Franklin … after the Constitutional Convention, people asked him what kind of government they gave us. His response…“A republic if you can keep it!

I realize a lot of people will argue about the Biblical foundation of our country and often reference Jackson and Franklin so I’ll throw in another quote from Benjamin Franklin while in France on what we would call immigration. Besides being what we perceive as being somewhat narrow regarding the type of person we would welcome, he has a somewhat unsettling assessment for the modern progressive Marxist in concluding his essay entitled “Benjamin Franklin’s Advice for those Coming to America, 1784.”

“The almost general mediocrity of fortune that prevails in America obliging its people to follow some business for subsistence, those vices that arise usually from idleness, are in a great measure prevented. Industry and constant employment are great preservatives of the morals and virtues of a nation. Hence bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there, infidelity rare and secret, so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting either an atheist, or an infidel. And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other, by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country.”

 

That predaceous preclusion the Lord gave me, as I’ve come to see it, is the paint that’s coloring society today. Suppression of Madison’s view of property mirrors that of every dictatorial oppression seen in the history of man. Who could have dreamed this as the “American” dream. If what we are seeing now is a pandemic, then we can see one around the corner every time the left needs a political coup. Massive voter fraud decried as a myth, censorship beyond the scope of anything our country has seen in the past, outright lies by a one sided owned media, gives us the assurance that the sound of one hand clapping is the new norm. If history has taught us anything, it is that some one or group always wants to rule the world.

An insatiable predaceous lust seeks it’s prey devouring `anything in it’s path, precluding and suppressing that which suggests a God given right. The hurdle they must cross and they refuse to acknowledge is that God is real. He doesn’t change. Morality isn’t a floating crap table that caters to man’s whim at any given time and He administers justice accordingly. When a person’s life is a hindrance to their goal, it becomes disposable. If the most vulnerable aren’t safe, don’t be deluded into thinking you are.

 

“We need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion. A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village; the scholar has lived in many times and is therefore in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his age.” C.S. Lewis

 

I love that guy. We have information coming out of our ears; some true and some false, but definitely not a lack of. Critical thinking is almost non-existent. Manipulation is the theme for today. If I might offer a modest example, and this model is widespread in textbooks today under different guises. You may ask me if I still beat my wife. If I say yes, I’m a wife beater. If I say no, I used to beat my wife. There’s no room for a truthful response that I have never beat my wife. Automatic assumptions are purposely injected to manipulate the response. People that swallow the lies surrounding the history of our country haven’t ventured out of our revisionist age back to original sources. Perspective is perverted for a purpose and the appetite for twisted fables to court our offended integrity are always on the menu. If “conscience is the most sacred of our property” as Madison says, it means little to the ideology that the end justifies the means. Conscience then, must most assuredly be reprobate to that end, and will negate any assurance of the security we have been accustomed to in this country. The beast is on the loose and his nature is as always “Predaceous Preclusion”.

                                “ Dungeon Grates” C.S.Lewis  1919

      

                          We shall keep

                          Our vision still. One moment was enough

                         We know we are not made of mortal stuff

                          And we can bear all trials that come after   

                          The hate of men and the fools loud bestial laughter        

 And Natures rule and cruelties unclean   

                     For we have seen the Glory ----- We have seen         

                      

                                                                                                                             

 

 

Gordon Bieber Channel You Tube

Method Madness

     I may not like something someone said but I will defend to the death their right to say it. This used to be the definition of tolerance; simple, but evidentially not progressive enough for all of us.  Still, opinions obverse to the simplicity of this somewhat pragmatic approach are obsessed with an insatiable appetite to control the dialogue by any means, all to often sounding like something resembling fingernails sliding down a chalkboard. Pragmatic approaches from either side are essentially experiential and all too often the criteria for the approach lies in it's ability to achieve a desired result. This doesn't necessarily make the approach true or honest. It just shows that it works.  A good wife beating might subdue or eradicate a nagging tongue, but remains morally reprehensible and unacceptable. 
     Some of you may have pegged me already as another mouthpiece for a particular party. I'm party-less. Washington was as dismayed at the devolution into a system of political swamp campings as I am. After considering the two party options, it is apparent there is no choice after the choice is made. Democrats have conveniently played the, "we were really the anti-racist party all the time." They say this despite the fact that every piece of legislation passed to suppress the black populace was theirs and the Democratic controlled areas are the most oppressive, and they are still the perpetrators of racist policies. Affirmative action, an obvious detriment to the equal opportunity that Frederick Douglas fought so hard for, with differing preference dependent on ethnicity, suddenly becoming the measuring rod. We used to call that a double standard. For the sake of fairness we tip the table in another direction much to the dismay of others as seen statistically as in the case of Chinese students. Melanin, the predominant pigment for skin color, must be the ruling authority in such delicate cases. 
     Coloring outside the lines is a somewhat slippery slope. Hate speech\hate crimes are nothing more than weaponized tools for the left. One crime, two penalties, dependent on skin pigment. One word with one acceptable and one unacceptable usage dependent on skin pigment. African tribes kidnapping people from different African tribes and then selling them to Spanish slave trade dealers to sell to southern Democrat slave owners makes for an  interesting coloring book. Still, white seems to cause the biggest blemish on society even when pigment as a qualifier is dismissed. A black person can magically become a "white nigger" if he is not in the right political swimming pool. A white person can magically become "white trash" if certain societal conditions are found to be lacking. Isn't it interesting how divergent scenarios like these can be the basis for a mutual alignment?  Still, some people just seem to have a propensity for coloring outside the lines and "all lives matter" suddenly becomes racist.
     A lie is not simply  "a terminological inexactitude"; a lie is often a truth told with bad intent. I may repeat the same exact words of someone else and yet I lie because I convey a wrong meaning. If you don't believe me, watch the news. As a disclaimer, I have to state that I rarely watch the news if I can avoid it. Politically, I base my voting decisions on voting records that are readily available. If you support abortion, that automatically disqualifies you from any possibility of securing my vote. (As a side note, is everyone aware of the disproportionate amount of abortion clinics in predominately black neighborhoods?)  Back to the news. News stemming from five major networks owned by the same people that all are repeating the exact word-for-word mantras [I've watched a clip showing 25 different newscasters saying the exact same thing] is all too often a method for a delusion of consensus with the secondary purpose of producing and or manipulating consensus.  
     "We the people," not really. The legislative branch used to be charged with that responsibility of representing us and the passage of law to which they were accountable to us.  Both parties have relinquished that duty and relegated it to federal bureaucratic agencies. Isn't it nice to see them holding hands on something!?  Our law or regulations [same thing] is now extended to these conglomerates with power to execute judgment, enforcement, and fine. Regulations have exceeded 600,000 in number. In twenty years they have escalated to the point of losing count without any possibility of oversight. Their survival as an institution is their first priority, focusing on perpetuating a continuous need for their service. Who's got the time to oversee that?  It's an infection in the body of our government much worse than any viral infection we're in danger of. Government agencies are now used to exact pressure and retribution on people who don't conform to ideologies held by the purse string holders.  We used to be a republic, then a democracy [one Marx's favorites because they always implode] and are by any reasonable semblance of a definition, now socialist. [See the 10 planks of the communist manifesto] We are a reproach to any recognition of our constitution. When a leftist uses the word republic to represent our government, he's lying to you.  Bernie's Socialist Republic is a contradiction of ideologies. Watch the short presentation I've posted for a quick and encompassing education on governments called "Types of Government explained". We're swimming in a cesspool of bureaucracy without a lifeguard in sight and sinking fast.
     History has the answer but it's being erased as fast as we make it.  I admire Stonewall Jackson. I admit he was a lawbreaker and a  southern democrat. Still, due to the fact that he was openly teaching slaves in his Bible school to read, despite the laws prohibiting this, I have to admire him. The majority of southerners didn't have slaves but were enamored by the theory of evolution that fed their delusion of superiority. Most fought for state rights. Still, this was inexcusable so let's demonize it while northern democrats, who were not opposed to slavery, but disavowed secession are in the clear. History certainly must be controlled to ensure a right portrait in securing a platform for our enlightened scenario of political correctness. So, a good twist or erasure? Which method to twist? It changes as fast as the political football is passed. 
     For the life of me, I don't know how much more of this new tolerance and diversity I can tolerate!  Lots of methodologies or ways to view things. Rationalism, fideism, experientialism, evidentialism, I use them all [combinationalism]. Still, you can misuse, abuse and twist them all. You can always find a hole in the bucket for sure, even when you combine them all. Lots of buckets just multiplies the number of holes. So, how do we find an authentic way or method of discernment, the real truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; or a liberating, fulfilling life of peaceful resolution in this brewing pot of despair?  It's in a Person. He says, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." His name is Jesus Christ. His Way is sure, His Truth is the truth and can be your truth, and His Life can be your life.`


"Thine iniquity hath an end" Lamentations 4:22


"My guilt is ended when I repent of sin; when I stop admitting and start confessing. Am I blaming any of my forbears for my present condition? Then my punishment will go on til I blame them no more. Am I blaming the circumstances in which I live? Then my punishment will go on til I stop blaming my circumstances. As long as I have any remnant of an idea that I can be cleared any other way than by God through the Redemption, my punishment will go on. The instant I stop blaming everything but myself, and acquit God of injustice to me, my recognition of Him begins."
                                                                    Oswald Chambers


Some "thing" is provoking a civil war, using a systematic methodical madness. They're using it because it works. They've been working hard the last hundred years with no signs of giving in. They call it "progressive." Our constitution was progressive. Nothing in history ever saw it's equal. In truth, history displays for us the same path of regression  over and over again. It's now become a game plan for reprobate leaders. Borrow my copy of Mein Kampf if you like. Whatever it takes. The bigger the lie the easier to swallow. Winning at all costs despite the means used.
     The end never justifies the means. We used to know that. Didn't we? The last delusion we need to be delivered from is the idea that we don't get what we deserve. God help us!

You and I

VERSE 1
On a moonlit night
Just a stroll in the quiet
Where friendship resides
Could love finally triumph
Where two can be so much
Can there be room for one
Will the moonlight survive
With the rising of the sun


CHORUS:

You and I for the rest of our lives
It's you and I, one heart and one desire
God is the spark
And God feeds the fire
It's you and I
Til the stars fall from the sky
It's you and I

VERSE 2
She wraps me up in her smile
Just to start the day
We're lost in this moment
Where love is truly made
For love can't be touched
Tomorrow or in the yesterday's
So we bask in God's glory
And this is where we play


CHORUS:

BRIDGE:
As light kisses the water
casting reflections of a life
the wind binds a prayer
on her wings she softly sighs
caressing still the verse
of hopes and dreams preserved
Forever is our tomorrow
But today is why we sing

CHORUS:

VERSE 3:
She wraps me up in her smile
At the close of every day
Memories of those moments
She safely tucks away
For love surrounds the cadence
Of the path that Jesus paves
So we bask in God's own Glory
And this is where we play

FLIP-FLOPS

Have you ever noticed, especially when reading apologetics or in anything requiring critical analysis, an extraordinary occurrence that pops up quite frequently. They're employed in some of the most startling quotes from my favorite authors. Since my wife gifted me with the complete works of Oswald Chambers; I've been making a habit of highlighting them and will refer to them as "flip-flops.


For a clearer understanding of what I refer to as Flip-flops, saving me the task of trying to explain them, here are some examples from Oswald Chambers works which I referenced above.


"God does not further our spiritual life in spite of our circumstances, but in and by our circumstances."


"God does not give us the overcoming life: He gives life to the man who overcomes."


"The idea is not that we get the victory, but that the Victor has got us."


"Faith never knows where it is being led, it knows and loves the One Who is leading."


"God never fits His word to suit me; He fits me to suit His word."


These examples should quickly explain my perceptions of what flip-flops are and do. Quick surgical cuts contrasting common misconceptions with a very often uncomfortable alternative. They very often verify the distinctions between a persons role and God's. How often have you heard someone wishing they could just find the right person to marry or find that perfect job that suit his wants or needs. It could quite possibly be that God desires that you work on making yourself the right person for marriage or actually making yourself the right person an employer would desire to hire. I very much doubt the drive for self-realization will ever dethrone God's will for His realization. I have doubts that God will ever reverse roles with us in our God centered relationship. Peter, states in his second epistle about being partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. Following that he says "And beside this, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they shall make you that ye shall not be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In the world today of our adopted entitlement mentality, prevalent in the church, we naturally assume that it's God's job to add these things. I recently read a five step plan for salvation. Noticeably absent in all these steps, starting with what I would regard as the most important, was that awful repentance word, not withstanding obedience, which is the most vital aspect of a relationship with God, which may lead to another uncomfortable confrontation with discipline. One more thought; if it pleased God to bruise His only begotten Son for our salvation, why would it not be possible that He bruise us. Or is their ever to be a sacrifice on our part?       
                                    Flip-flop!

Atheistic Contributions to Apologetics

I've been reading Geisler's Christian Apologetics  again. This is the 4th or 5th time. It's hard reading for someone such as me with my limited linguistic skills. Still, I've always been driven by an insatiable thirst for logic and have been pleasantly surprised by the contributions made by atheistic arguments for the correction of erroneous assertions made by ill informed Christians. I won't go into all of these points of contention for the sake of space, and of course, you always have the option of reading the arguments yourself. I would recommend reading material representing both sides.The sound of one hand clapping is no sound at all except the echoing of one's own bias, ingratiating ones own ego, or more to the point, a simple cowardly waste of time.

I've decided to go with two cosmological arguments against theism for an example of the atheistic defense of the non existence of God.  The principle of causality to atheism or rather that causality leads to an infinite regress is a very common defense used by Bertrand Russell via his "Why I Am Not a Christian" expose. It goes something like this. If everything needs a cause, then so does God in which case he would not be God. If God does not need a cause, then neither does the world. If the world needs no cause then neither does God. Hence, whether every thing needs a cause or doesn't need a cause there is no God. If we push the principle of causality all the way and insist everything needs a cause, then we launch on an infinite regress and never reach a first cause or what theist's would call God.

 The second example we can label "Causality leads to a self caused God" as Sartre presented in his work "Being and Nothingness." It goes something like this. Everything must have a cause in itself or out side of its self. If we arrive at a cause that no longer has need for any cause outside of itself [God],then this cause must have the cause for itself within itself. That is, that God must be a self caused being. But, a self caused being is impossible; for to cause oneself to exist, one would have to exist prior to his existing, which is impossible. Another way of stating this is, only what does not exist needs its existence to be caused. But to cause existence one must exist; nothing cannot cause something. Hence God as a self caused being cannot exist. 

 These two arguments are intriguing in their own way. Of course, Christian theology doesn't believe God needs a cause, or that He is self caused. The Bible tells us that God  identifies Himself simply as "I Am." We believe God is un-caused, or to say it another way, that God is a necessary being. The question then becomes, "How is that defensible?" Geisler states that "Causality need not lead to an infinite regress." He believes that this is based on a misconception of the principality of the principal of causality. Or better, it is a confusion of the principle of sufficient existential causality and the principle of sufficient reason. The latter affirms that everything needs a cause. This would seem,as the atheists observe, leads to a contradiction of God being His own cause. But Aquinas, for example held that only finite, changing,dependent beings need a cause. This does not lead to a contradictory self-caused Being, but to a non contradictory un-caused Being. For if only finite beings need a cause, then when one arrives at a non finite [i.e. infinite] being it does not need a cause. Hence, from Aquinas' principle of causality the series would legitimately stop at a first, Uncaused Cause of all finite beings.  

The principle of existential causality does not lead, as does the principle of sufficient reason, to a contradictory self-caused Being. Rather, since only finite, dependent beings need a cause it leads to an infinite and necessary Being that does not need a cause.


Geisler goes on further in his rebuttal but this is sufficient for the basis of my personal perspective. Critical thinking on both sides, while sometimes lacking in presentation, does indeed lead to self analytical correction. Self defeating statements are laid bare upon examination and exposed. One of my favorites is about truth. People let it spill out their mouths only to confirm their own lack of forethought, but revealing an extensive degree of proficiency in mimicry. It always goes something like this; "Truth is subjective and can't be known." Of course, what they are saying is they want you to accept this statement as true, that truth can't be known. When I was younger I repeated a lot of silly mantras I'd heard without an inkling of critical thought. I used to say you can't legislate morality. I'll let you think on that one for a while. If you can't figure that one out I've wasted my time. 

I'm rabbit trailing again. My whole premise, once again, is not to bash the atheist. I believe they're wrong; but along the way they've played a great part through their challenges of theism in correcting my own misconceptions and perspectives. Geisler's book has stripped away many invalid arguments, but laid a solid foundation for an incredibly effective approach for giving an answer to anyone seeking for truth.

One final thought, in following the metaphysical arguments to the end, we find that for the Christian, God is pure actuality, or as the Bible says He is the great "I Am". We are contingent, or rather we are finite. We don't have to exist. We are confined to the realm of potentiality. We need a cause to exist. Hence the whole basis for examination of the infinite regress position. There is no potentiality in God. He is pure goodness without possibility of being other than that. He is pure Justice, Compassion, and Mercy. He can't be more or less than this. This is pure actuality. For the atheist, he arrives at nothing, absolute nothingness, and believes that from potentiality comes actuality.

At the end of the day none of this lead me to or from my belief in God. Jesus said to "Seek ye first the kingdom of God". I did. I asked and received. I'm almost embarrassed at some of the undeniable things God so graciously did to assure me of His reality. My consuming interest in pursuing theology isn't to just bolster my faith, or to give an answer. I'm still kind of a dork of sorts, and I still want to learn and at times even to be corrected. This is, of course, not nearly as extensive as it needs to be. Just trying to stir the pot a little. My pot has burn marks from not being stirred enough. (;<)




"In the beginning, [time] God created the heaven [space] and the earth [matter]. Genesis 1:1  



Recommended reading for a more exhaustive examination of Methodology, Theistic apologetics, and Christian Apologetics: Christian Apologetics by Norman L. Geisler

When The Left Is Right

I was recently introduced to a thriller called "Arlington Road" by my son after also watching a PBS documentary on the Oklahoma bombing. I've just recently been watching tube stuff more than I've been reading. I'm a just a little bit confused as to how the left became the right, or to be more precise how conservative suddenly became right wing racist with a splash of white supremacy Christianity thrown in for embellishment. A slick bit of propaganda for sure. I tend to lean towards the sarcastic far more than I sometimes should, but the outright mockery on both sides of our political arena seems to be substantiated by nothing more than mantras fed by propagating machines to a gullible mass more than willing to splash them all over social media [FB]. 

The Hitler label is a favorite one. We all seem to somehow be Hitler-like when in reality Hitler was like us. He was a big fan of a lot of our political solutions and agendas. We'll see some in a bit. I'm going to just highlight some of our historical  background to shed some clarity on our white supremacy legacy without a lot of commentary.

1619- Arrival of the first slaves in America, England forbids states the right to abolish slavery until the "Declaration of Independence"
1787- US Constitution written. 3/5ths clause Article 1, Section 2 allows southern slave owners to count slaves towards representation to almost double representatives  in congress - 50,000 slaves instead of 30,000 for 1 representative - slavery was already abolished by most northern states

1789- Northwest Ordinance prohibits slavery in Federal Territories. This consequently allows Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to come into the Union as free states.

1808-  Congress abolishes slave trade

1820- Most Founding Fathers  are dead and Jefferson's Party, the Democrats are majority party in Congress. The Missouri Compromise is passed reversing the Northwest Ordinance enabling slavery in half the Federal Territories. For the first time Congress promotes slavery since the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

1850- Fugitive Slave Law passed - Northerners to return fugitive slaves or pay huge fines. Democrats are controlling party. Free blacks in the North are kidnapped and taken to the South to be sold into slavery. 20,000 free blacks flee to Canada. Undergroud railroad is formed.

1854- Democratic Congress passes Kansas-Nebraska act allowing slavery where it was previously forbidden.

May of 1854- Anti-slavery Democrats, Free Soilers, Whigs, and Emancipationists  form a new party, the Republicans, to fight slavery and promote equal rights for Americans, and to promote a return to the principles of the Republic and Founding Fathers.

1856- Republicans enter their first presidential race with John Freemont and William L. Dalton. Their first party platform consisted of 9 planks; of which 6 were for black equality and civil rights.

1856- James Buchanan, Democrat, defends slavery platform stating "All efforts of the abolitionists are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous effects and all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people."   

1857- Democratic led Supreme Court gives us the Dredd Scott Decision reducing Blacks to property without any legal recourse as persons. This was duplicated by Hitler's court making Jews non-people. Supreme Court Judge Roger Scott Taney, stated " Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and ... the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

1860- Lincoln is the Republicans candidate running against Stephen Douglas. The Republicans plank blasted the Dredd Scott Decision and Fugitive Slave Law and announced it's goal to end slavery and win civil rights for blacks. Democrat's platform praises the Fugitive Slave Law and Dredd Scott Decision handing out copies of the former.

1860- The election splits the Democrat Party. Both sides support slavery but the North is against secession. Northern Democrats support Douglas while the South supports John C. Breckenridge. Lincoln wins with just 40% of the popular vote and 59% of the electoral vote. Democratic response - Southern Democrats left Congress and took their states forming a nation they described as "The Slave Holding Confederate States of America". Northern Democrats support slavery and are opposed to civil rights but strongly oppose secession.

1862- Republicans abolish slavery in Washington D.C.

1863- Republicans issue The Emancipation Proclamation freeing all the slaves in the southern states

Republican majority starts passing civil rights laws. S.99 Secures equality in the courts for black people; before this they were not allowed to testify and couldn't bring suit so they were excluded from the legal process.

1864- S.145 gets blacks equal pay in the military - Senate HR establishes Freedman's Bureau.

1864- George McClellan runs against Lincoln for president. Campaign rhetoric comprised "nearly 1 million white men have been sacrificed --- Lincoln has declared his intention to convert it [the war] into a forcible abolition and negro equality socially and politically.

1864- Republican platform promotes 13th Amendment. Congress has 200 members, 118 republicans and 82 democrats, w/137 voting to prohibit slavery. All the republicans and 19 democrats voted to end slavery.

1865- Civil War is ended - Reconstruction begins. 2-12-1865; the first African American, Henry Highland Garnet, speaks in the halls of Congress. 

Side note: 12-4-1800 Congress authorizes church services to be held in the capital. By 1867 the largest church in Washington was the Capital.  

1865- 11 Southern States take an oath of loyalty to the laws [civil rights] by swearing on not only the Bible and God but on the Holy Evangely of God [Jesus].

1867- July 4th in Houston Texas the Republican Party was founded by 120 Blacks and 20 Whites. For a few years Republicans were the majority party of most Southern States and moved quickly to protect voting rights, prohibit segregation, establish public education, open public transportation, state police, and schools to black Americans.

Black Republicans in State Legislatures: Texas 42, Louisiana 95 Representatives and the first 32 Senators, Alabama 103 Representatives, Mississippi 112, Florida 30, S. Carolina 190, N. Carolina 30, Virginia 46, Georgia 40.
Democratic response was not to honor the laws they swore to and said slaves may be free but not citizens of their states.

14th Amendment was passed giving citizenship to the freed slaves in the state in which they lived. Not a single Democrat voted for the 14th Amendment. Now blacks can be elected to the Federal government.

 1872-Currier and Ives present the "1st Seven Blacks", picturing former slaves that attained Federal seats in Congress. See "Neglected Voices" website for speeches presented by the 1st 23 congressmen. You might need a dictionary. 

15th Amendment passed : Blacks cannot be denied the right to vote because of color.

1861 to 1875- 23 civil rights laws are passed by a Republican controlled Congress.

1866- A wing of the Democrat party is formed - the Ku Klux Klan - to prevent Republicans from gaining office. They terrorize Blacks with floggings and public hangings and promise relief only if they promise not to vote Republican with violation resulting in death.

1868- In S. Carolina the KKK push card [picture of Republican members of legislature - 50 black and 13 white with names on the back] was used to identify potential targets. After the Reconstruction period 4800 republicans were hanged, 1300 white, 3500 black.

1871- Federal law passed to punish Klan violence.

1876- Democrats regain partial control with a majority in the House. Violence in the South escalates. It will be 89 years before another civil rights law is passed.

1892- Democrats regain control with the Presidency, Senate and House. They repeal all the civil rights laws, the Klan laws, the force laws, and anti-segregation laws. They introduce the Black codes, poll tax, property tax, and grandfather clause. 11 ways to keep Blacks from voting - Literary tests 20 pages long, hide and seek polling places for Republican booths to keep people from finding them and considerable voter fraud.

1910- 40,000 KKK members march in Washington. KKK thrives in the 20's 30's & 40's.

1920- "Birth of a Nation"- 1st movie in the White House, with Democrat Woodrow Wilson as President, depicts the Klan as heroes saving the South. Former President Teddy Roosevelt had appointed a number of blacks to office and was criticized for inviting Booker T. Washington to come to the White House. Wilson removed all black appointees. Hitler was alive and well and very impressed.

1928- Democratic Presidential campaign handout reads as follows: " What happened when the Republican party was in power in Alabama". 
" If you believe in white supremacy vote the strait Democrat on November 6th." 
Hitler was alive and well and very impressed.

Dwight D. Eisenhower [Republican] submits Civil Rights Bill and Voting Rights Act. Both are killed in Congress by the chairman of the judiciary, a Democrat.. Riots in Birmingham during John F. Kennedy's term prompt him to re-introduce  Eisenhower's bills. Kennedy is assassinated. 

1964- Civil Rights Bill passes under Lyndon Johnson. Democrats need a simple majority. They have 315 members but come up short with only 198 or 62% of their party. Republicans vote is 83%. Shame on the 17% of partisan Republicans that didn't vote yes because of politics.  

60's -The beginning of the liberal landslide. Evolution replaces God in the Public Schools, teenage illegitimate birthrates and drug use explode, Democratic party dives into a Socialist Utopian deluge with the Republicans following suit, but at a slower pace. Abortion is legalized. Still true to the democratic position that some people are property to do and dispose of as they see fit. Black Americans make up 11% of the population with a disproportional amount [ 35%] of the abortions in our country. For every 100 births, 53 black Americans are victims of abortion keeping Margaret Sanger's legacy alive. To take an objective look at socialism and the welfare whiplash on black families would take another thread of history to unravel dating back to the early 1700's. So here we are left with a Democratic flip-flop tactic of laying the blame on the party that was formed in response to their blemish on society leaving them floundering on the rocks of their own ingenuity. 

This has been just a legislative peek at our white supremacy heritage. To get a greater perspective on all of the political battlefields and the war on slavery you'll need to dig into our Christian heritage, which means going back to pre-revisionist historical accounts not based on our present proletarian guided versions that allow only an economic cause and effect account. Prepare for your eyes to be opened and find a rich black history with heroes of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. It's one of which Black Americans are not always portrayed as victims. It's history enough to fill several posts if I can find the time, or better yet, if you find the time.   
                                                                                                            David Barton of Wallbuilders is the best resource I've found for American History. He owns over 100,000 original documents from before 1812. Definitely the best source for American Black History.  Find out more at this link ---      https://wallbuilders.com/links/