[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/new_details.asp?ID=43011]]]reason #1[/URL]

Do those black lives matter to the NAACP? Childress wanted to know. He wants the civil-rights group to oppose abortion and end what he called "genocide."

That would mean the NAACP reversing its 2004 pro-choice decision, which is unlikely.

Childress, a conservative, said he is "appalled by NAACP silence" on what he calls a "pernicious attack" on African-Americans.

I asked him the meaning of his black-and-white T-shirt that said, "Stop Funding Racism."

s c wrote:
The majority of abortions are non-black.

The purpose of this web site is to expose the disproportionate amount of Black babies destroyed by the abortion industry. For every two African American women that get pregnant one will choose to abort.
A Black baby is 5 times more likely to be killed in the womb than a White Baby.

Statistics from The Alan Guttmaucher Institute

"Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The most dangerous place for an African American to be is in the womb of their African American mother.

Christopher000 wrote:
They cut off the parts they can sell, slap a reserve price on them and start the bidding.

to slay the souls that should not die,

and to save the souls alive that should not live,

by your lying to my people that hear your lies? 13:20 Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.
13:21 Your kerchiefs also will I tear, and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand to be hunted; and ye shall know that I am the LORD.

I wouldn't use it-but can not fault the bold intentions of this group.

What would have been the point of the foregoing proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States prohibiting or limiting the right of secession if under the Constitution the unfettered right of secession did not already exist? Why would Congress have even considered proposed amendments to the Constitution forbidding or restricting the right of secession if any such right was already prohibited, limited or non-existent under the Constitution?

Morse goes on to discuss the conditional ratification of the Constitution by three of the original thirteen states, which carefully reserved the right of secession. They were Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island. Virginia used the exact wording of her conditional ratification of the U.S. Constitution, in her Ordinance of Secession.
----
The right to leave does NOT mean it was right to leave- just like the right to divorce doesn't mean it is always right to divorce.

John for JESUS wrote:
thought to highly

And what does the LORD think of Israel/Jerusalem....???
I think there is a flaw in your reasoning.

You also did not reply to the fact that
1.
[URL=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp]]]your source of War logic includes state rights[/URL]

2.Rebellion is put down even when the cause is JUST ( I agree with Nat Turner's right to make war for freedowm) so by your logic, God must have wanted Nat & the rest to stay as slaves?? see prev.post

3. the analogy to "no fault divorce" seems apt: or on Mafia analogy by Mike

4. Evil BIBLICAL nations were used to scourge Israel: do you think the Assyrians were a more Godly nation than Israel??

As I said, I don't make Idols of either side, or either flag: the only kingdom that is going to endure is the Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The South probably got what they deserved but the U.SS A. is gonna get it pretty soon, too.

John for JESUS wrote:
voluntary to join, not leave.

quote:
"Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE."

Thus- as basic state's rights to leave was argued;
(and during the time of the War of 1812, I remind you of NORTHERN states who claimed the right to seceed on the SAME principle.

They were 'married' under a
'no fault divorce law'

Lincoln
looked at it as his right to track down the divorcing 'wife',
beat her , starve her, kill lots of her kids and starve others into submission,
and then take the duty of training up the `family' that what they did was right,
and only done out of love and justice..

pennnelope wrote:
aggression is S paying violent disruptors in Ferguson.

[URL=http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Turner%27s_slave_rebellion]]]Nat Turner Rebellion[/URL]
The rebels traveled from house to house, freeing slaves and killing all the white people they encountered.
Because the rebels did not want to alert anyone, they discarded their muskets and
used knives, hatchets, axes, and blunt instruments instead of firearms.
Historian Stephen B. Oates states that Turner called on his group to
"kill all the white people."
A contemporary newspaper noted,
"Turner declared that 'indiscriminate slaughter was not their intention
after they attained a foothold,
and was resorted to in the first instance to strike
terror and alarm.'"
The group spared a few homes "because Turner believed the poor white inhabitants 'thought no better of themselves than they did of negroes.'"
The rebels spared almost no one whom they encountered, with the exception to a small child who hid in a fireplace among the few survivors. The slaves killed approximately sixty white men, women and children..

Aggression is sometimes right but
the South argued it started by the North fomenting violent attacks by their slaves

That 'minimal justice' seems to be missing in their basic case as
Slavery is a capital crime, so a main point that justice in that regard
was missing from the south seems right,
(until you note the North not really pushing the end of slavery consistently-Lincoln said he was fine with maintaining slavery to keep the Union)

In terms of sovereignty rights ... I think the States retained the right to leave.(and they voted to)

When both sides are legitimate, we imagine a “no-fault divorce”

We all know “no-fault divorce” cases where one side seems to be doing it for rotten reasons,
but,
the Founding Fathers set up the Union with a “no-fault divorce” type system.

John for JESUS wrote:
the state's own words. SC further stated .

Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE."

John for JESUS wrote:
Why SC declared war

[URL=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp]]]multiple reasons for seccession:some EVIL[/URL]

I agree that there were some evil reasons for seccession:
probably why they lost.

But there are other reasons;
... interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North... when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army!

One of those northern slaveholders was General Grant..he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South broke out. Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”

Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment--the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting President.Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof..etc.

Hosed Downed wrote:
why wait until the sixties?

that IS when the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia began.

I would never fly that flag so as not to offend you : or others.
but I know people who look at it as a sign of State's rights, southern pride, etc. and NOT racism.

kids who had a General Lee Car with this symbol had no racist intentions:
(might be insensitive to sell it though)

u are at least 20 yrs off in the 1900s

I picked a Lib news site to
document the 1940's use of this flag:
which as u say has racist tomes:
DixieCrat

[URL=http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/24/us/confederate-flag-myths-facts/]]]CNN on Battle Flag History[/URL]

Might be a good idea not to buy or use and flag that stands for slavery to some;
but it might be good to cut some slack & assume the best,

[URL=http://www.amazon.com/Wave-Confederate-Flag-Written-Black/dp/141207178X]]]a Black Man waves this flag:his book link[/URL]
we should not GIVE
offense,
but I don't want to TAKE offense

Does the US flag stand for Slavery, Slaughter, and Sodomy???
to some, yes.
Should we not display that which offends people?
Rom
14:1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 14:16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. 14:18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
14:21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. 14:22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Pastor Adams reminds us that far more evil has been done under the banner of the Stars and Stripes than under the Confederate Flag. Truly born-again Christians have been translated into Christ's kingdom; they are to pledge allegiance to Christ alone, and not to any flag or to the state.

John UK wrote:
verse from the Canticles.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deovendickia,’ (The Lord is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ.
The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross.

this flag tries to evoke through the reference to Andrew, the love of the Cross: but better yet...

[URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=62915725505]]]Sam Adams: the True Colors of America SA sermon[/URL]

Brother Saint Elected Elmer I wrote:
the American flag idol raised higher than the Christian flag idol .., but I do appreciate their honesty on who their god is.

Psa 60:4 Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, that it may be displayed because of the truth. Selah.

Isa 59:19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.

John for JESUS wrote:
Mike...
That hasn't stopped the KKK from waiving the.