Mrsqueen's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Mrsqueen's Profile › Mrsqueen's Posts
Dishboss:550k |
Freeworldbutfre:Exactly 💯 |
Opinion: By PastorKay The Betrayer’s Blueprint: Why Umo Eno Must Flee Akpabio’s Political Trap. Governor Umo Eno must tread carefully. The man he’s trying to please—Senator Godswill Akpabio—is a master of betrayal with a long history of using men and discarding them when they no longer serve his ambition. Let’s begin with Obong Victor Attah: Akpabio would not be in politics today if not for this man. He was languishing in Lagos, barely surviving in a struggling law practice when Obong Attah left the comfort of Uyo and went to Lagos to pick him up. He brought him to Akwa Ibom and made him Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs. That was the launchpad of Akpabio’s political career. But how did he repay this political father? He turned his back on him completely. He betrayed him. He humiliated him. He pushed him out of the political circle and to this very day, Akpabio does not want to hear the name “Attah.” That’s not just ungrateful—it’s wicked. Then came Senator John James Akpanudoedehe: History will vindicate this truth: Akpanudoedehe was the backbone that made Akpabio governor. He campaigned for him, fought for him, built alliances, and ensured he got the ticket. In return, Akpabio gave him the FCT Minister of State position. But the moment he settled into power, he threw Udoedehe into political oblivion. He locked every door against him and pushed him into the background of Akwa Ibom politics where he remains sidelined to this day. That’s betrayal served cold. Umana Okon Umana: Obong Umana was not just a political ally—he was Akpabio’s trusted brother in arms. He used his own money to sponsor Akpabio’s governorship bid. He helped coordinate the political machinery. In appreciation, Akpabio made him SSG and gave his word that the governorship would one day be his. But when that time came, Akpabio betrayed him. He fought him bitterly, blocked him, and destroyed every structure Umana had built. Till today, Umana is still recovering from the political wounds Akpabio inflicted. Obong Nsima Ekere: Ekere suffered a similar fate. He was another trusted loyalist. Akpabio looked him in the eye and promised him he would be his successor. Nsima believed him. He served, invested, built, and remained loyal. But when the time came, Akpabio denied him. Nsima had to leave PDP because of that betrayal. But even in APC, Akpabio still came after him. He hijacked the party Nsima helped grow and has been suffocating his relevance ever since. That’s not politics—it’s treachery. Then there is Udom Emmanuel: Perhaps the most painful betrayal of them all. Udom was never a politician. He was a banker. Akpabio picked him, dressed him, marketed him, and imposed him on Akwa Ibom people. He called him the “best man to succeed him.” And Udom believed it. But when Udom decided not to be a puppet, Akpabio snapped. He defected to APC and declared war on the very house he built. He fought Udom with every weapon he could find—spiritually, politically, financially. That is the fate of anyone who refuses to bow to Akpabio’s control. Now the same Akpabio is stretching out a hand to Umo Eno. It may look like an invitation to power-sharing, but in truth, it is a well-laid trap. Akpabio is not known for sharing influence. He doesn’t build relationships; he builds ladders. And once he’s done climbing, he kicks the ladder away and walks on. Umo Eno must open his eyes and read the signs. If Victor Attah could be dumped, if Udoedehe could be silenced, if Umana could be crushed, if Nsima could be sidelined, and if Udom could be betrayed—who exactly does Umo Eno think he is to be treated any better? Akpabio is not looking for a partner. He’s looking for a pawn. And the moment Umo Eno loses political independence, he will become a governor in name but a political houseboy in function. He will lose the trust of his base, betray the mandate given to him by the PDP, and wreck the stability of Akwa Ibom politics. Conclusion: A Trap Disguised as an Invitation Senator Godswill Akpabio is a political lion, yes—but even lions eat their own cubs when hungry. Umo Eno must realize that aligning too closely with Akpabio, especially by dumping PDP, is not political strategy—it’s political suicide. Let him maintain respect, yes. Collaborate for development, yes. But defect? Never. He must remember: Akpabio doesn’t build partnerships. He builds ladders. And when he’s done climbing, he burns them. PastorKay is a Political Analyst and Commentator.
|
I wonder how this will benefit good governance.. |
Exactly 💯 |
OPINION: By PastorKay 5 Strategic Moves Suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara Must Make to Restore Peace and Reclaim The Government House in Rivers State The drama unfolding in Rivers State is no longer just a political squabble—it is a battle for the soul of governance, justice, and leadership in the Niger Delta. Suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara now stands at a historic junction. One wrong move could destroy the credibility of democratic institutions in Rivers State. One right move could redefine his legacy and write his name in gold. This is not the time to panic. It is not the time for impulsive outbursts. This is the time for deliberate, prophetic, and calculated leadership. Here are five strategic steps Governor Fubara must take to secure peace, restore stability, and return to Government House not just as a survivor — but as a symbol of democratic resilience. 1. Pursue Strategic Reconciliation Without Bowing to Manipulation Peace is not weakness. It takes strength to seek peace when betrayal is fresh. Fubara must initiate a roadmap for reconciliation — but not from a position of inferiority. He must re-open respectful dialogue with key stakeholders in the political architecture of the state. This includes the PDP hierarchy, state actors, federal intermediaries, and especially the suspended State House of Assembly and its embattled Speaker. Without a functional Assembly, governance suffers. But restoring the Assembly’s role must not come at the cost of surrendering executive authority or rubber-stamping external control. Fubara should offer terms that are legal, balanced, and development-focused. The message must be clear: “I am open to unity, but I will not be used.” Let reconciliation serve the people—not personal empires. 2. Initiate a Sincere but Strategic Engagement With Nyesom Wike There is no denying Wike’s political footprint in Rivers State. He’s not just a past governor — he’s a political force with influence both at state and national levels. But influence must bow to reason when peace is threatened. Governor Fubara must reach out to Wike not as a stooge but as a fellow son of Rivers. A house divided cannot stand. The personal and political fallout between the two men has escalated into a dangerous confrontation, poisoning the state’s political space. Wike must be reminded, in humility and wisdom, that posterity will not reward pride, but peace. The state is bigger than any single man — even a political godfather. If Wike truly loves Rivers, he must accept peaceful dialogue that puts the people first. Fubara’s approach must be honest, yet guarded. Sincere, but discerning. This is where true leadership is tested — and true leaders win through calm, not chaos. 3. Mobilize Grassroots Support and Amplify the Voice of the People No political force is more powerful than the people. When the people rise, kings bow. Governor Fubara must now lean on the greatest force in democracy — the grassroots. He must return to the towns, the villages, the communities, and the marketplaces. He must sit with the elders, the youth leaders, the clergy, and the traditional rulers. He must speak directly to the fishermen, the mechanics, the teachers, and the students. Let them see him, hear him, and feel him. He must remind them that his battle is not personal — it’s for them. He must expose what is at stake: stolen mandates, hijacked state funds, and a desire to impose leadership on Rivers people by force. When the masses understand the truth, they will defend it — in church, on the streets, and at the ballot box. Let Fubara become a man of the people — not a prisoner of political godfathers. 4. Stand Firm Legally and Boldly Expose Political Sabotage The courts are not just an option — they are a weapon. Fubara must activate every constitutional and legal mechanism available to fight political suppression. This includes filing suits, obtaining injunctions, and challenging all illegal decisions passed in his absence. Beyond the courtroom, he must wage war with the weapon of truth. The people deserve to know the full story. Fubara must present clear evidence of contracts hijacked, pressure to sign away state funds, threats made behind closed doors, and any unconstitutional interference in the executive arm of the government. He must take the story to the court of public opinion. Let Rivers people, and indeed the entire nation, see who the true enemy of peace is. In a time of lies, truth is revolutionary. And a leader who walks in truth is unshakable. 5. Unveil a Clear Vision Beyond the Crisis and Govern with Prophetic Boldness At the end of the day, politics is not just about surviving storms — it’s about building after them. Fubara must not allow himself to be reduced to a reactionary figure always fighting back. He must rise as a visionary and show the people where he’s taking the state. He should unveil a bold 12-month recovery and development plan: Jobs for youths, Housing reforms, Road construction in rural areas, Massive investments in health and education, Transparency in governance, Gender inclusion and security initiatives. Let him govern with focus, with fire, and with faith. Let his works speak louder than the noise. As he builds, let the people compare. Let the difference between governance and godfatherism become clear. He must not let the crisis define his time in office. Instead, let his vision rewrite the future. Final Comment This is Fubara’s defining moment. And Rivers State is watching. Nigeria is watching. History is watching. He must now rise like Nehemiah — with one hand on the sword of truth, and the other on the building tools of governance. He must walk like David — small in size, but armed with divine authority. He must lead like Moses — not for personal glory, but to bring his people out of political bondage. If he walks in wisdom, surrounds himself with the right counsel, and refuses to bow to fear, Governor Siminalayi Fubara will not only return to the Government House — he will rise as a symbol of hope for every young, bold leader in Nigeria. PastorKay is a Political Analyst and Social Activist Based in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
|
OPINION: By PastorKay 5 Strategic Moves Suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara Must Make to Restore Peace and Reclaim The Government House in Rivers State The drama unfolding in Rivers State is no longer just a political squabble—it is a battle for the soul of governance, justice, and leadership in the Niger Delta. Suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara now stands at a historic junction. One wrong move could destroy the credibility of democratic institutions in Rivers State. One right move could redefine his legacy and write his name in gold. This is not the time to panic. It is not the time for impulsive outbursts. This is the time for deliberate, prophetic, and calculated leadership. Here are five strategic steps Governor Fubara must take to secure peace, restore stability, and return to Government House not just as a survivor — but as a symbol of democratic resilience. 1. Pursue Strategic Reconciliation Without Bowing to Manipulation Peace is not weakness. It takes strength to seek peace when betrayal is fresh. Fubara must initiate a roadmap for reconciliation — but not from a position of inferiority. He must re-open respectful dialogue with key stakeholders in the political architecture of the state. This includes the PDP hierarchy, state actors, federal intermediaries, and especially the suspended State House of Assembly and its embattled Speaker. Without a functional Assembly, governance suffers. But restoring the Assembly’s role must not come at the cost of surrendering executive authority or rubber-stamping external control. Fubara should offer terms that are legal, balanced, and development-focused. The message must be clear: “I am open to unity, but I will not be used.” Let reconciliation serve the people—not personal empires. 2. Initiate a Sincere but Strategic Engagement With Nyesom Wike There is no denying Wike’s political footprint in Rivers State. He’s not just a past governor — he’s a political force with influence both at state and national levels. But influence must bow to reason when peace is threatened. Governor Fubara must reach out to Wike not as a stooge but as a fellow son of Rivers. A house divided cannot stand. The personal and political fallout between the two men has escalated into a dangerous confrontation, poisoning the state’s political space. Wike must be reminded, in humility and wisdom, that posterity will not reward pride, but peace. The state is bigger than any single man — even a political godfather. If Wike truly loves Rivers, he must accept peaceful dialogue that puts the people first. Fubara’s approach must be honest, yet guarded. Sincere, but discerning. This is where true leadership is tested — and true leaders win through calm, not chaos. 3. Mobilize Grassroots Support and Amplify the Voice of the People No political force is more powerful than the people. When the people rise, kings bow. Governor Fubara must now lean on the greatest force in democracy — the grassroots. He must return to the towns, the villages, the communities, and the marketplaces. He must sit with the elders, the youth leaders, the clergy, and the traditional rulers. He must speak directly to the fishermen, the mechanics, the teachers, and the students. Let them see him, hear him, and feel him. He must remind them that his battle is not personal — it’s for them. He must expose what is at stake: stolen mandates, hijacked state funds, and a desire to impose leadership on Rivers people by force. When the masses understand the truth, they will defend it — in church, on the streets, and at the ballot box. Let Fubara become a man of the people — not a prisoner of political godfathers. 4. Stand Firm Legally and Boldly Expose Political Sabotage The courts are not just an option — they are a weapon. Fubara must activate every constitutional and legal mechanism available to fight political suppression. This includes filing suits, obtaining injunctions, and challenging all illegal decisions passed in his absence. Beyond the courtroom, he must wage war with the weapon of truth. The people deserve to know the full story. Fubara must present clear evidence of contracts hijacked, pressure to sign away state funds, threats made behind closed doors, and any unconstitutional interference in the executive arm of the government. He must take the story to the court of public opinion. Let Rivers people, and indeed the entire nation, see who the true enemy of peace is. In a time of lies, truth is revolutionary. And a leader who walks in truth is unshakable. 5. Unveil a Clear Vision Beyond the Crisis and Govern with Prophetic Boldness At the end of the day, politics is not just about surviving storms — it’s about building after them. Fubara must not allow himself to be reduced to a reactionary figure always fighting back. He must rise as a visionary and show the people where he’s taking the state. He should unveil a bold 12-month recovery and development plan: Jobs for youths, Housing reforms, Road construction in rural areas, Massive investments in health and education, Transparency in governance, Gender inclusion and security initiatives. Let him govern with focus, with fire, and with faith. Let his works speak louder than the noise. As he builds, let the people compare. Let the difference between governance and godfatherism become clear. He must not let the crisis define his time in office. Instead, let his vision rewrite the future. Final Comment This is Fubara’s defining moment. And Rivers State is watching. Nigeria is watching. History is watching. He must now rise like Nehemiah — with one hand on the sword of truth, and the other on the building tools of governance. He must walk like David — small in size, but armed with divine authority. He must lead like Moses — not for personal glory, but to bring his people out of political bondage. If he walks in wisdom, surrounds himself with the right counsel, and refuses to bow to fear, Governor Siminalayi Fubara will not only return to the Government House — he will rise as a symbol of hope for every young, bold leader in Nigeria. PastorKay is a Political Analyst and Social Activist Based in Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
|
Exactly |
.
|
Opinion: By PastorKay
|
Still Available |
Okay |
jflower06:Thank you for sharing this. However, when examined through the lens of revelation and scripture, these examples you gave do not prove poverty — but they actually affirm Christ's divine authority, intentionality, and wealth in context. Let me now address each question one by one, with strong scriptures, clear explanations, and sound doctrine — exposing how these incidents were not out of lack, but out of prophetic agenda and kingdom demonstration. 1. WHY DID JESUS CURSE THE FIG TREE? (Mark 11:12–14, 20-21) Scripture: “Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, He went to find out if it had any fruit. When He reached it, He found nothing but leaves... Then He said to the tree, ‘May no one ever eat fruit from you again.’” — Mark 11:13-14 Explanation: This was not about hunger. Jesus didn’t curse the fig tree because He was frustrated or poor. It was a prophetic act, not a financial one. In fact, He already knew it wasn’t the season for figs (Mark 11:13). So why did He curse it? Because it had leaves but no fruit — a picture of false appearances and religious hypocrisy. Jesus used it to demonstrate that any life, system, or person that looks fruitful but is barren in reality will come under judgment. This was a Kingdom message, not a poor man's tantrum. Furthermore, poor men don’t kill trees with their words. Only Kings and Prophets operate at that level of dominion. Jesus was showcasing power, not lack. 2. WHAT BROUGHT ABOUT THE THIRD TEMPTATION BY SATAN? (Matthew 4:1–11) Scripture: “Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world… ‘All this I will give You,’ he said, ‘if You bow down and worship me.’” — Matthew 4:8–9 Explanation: This was not because Jesus lacked kingdoms or riches. It was Satan’s desperate attempt to make Jesus shortcut His mission. Jesus came to redeem the world through the Cross, not through compromise. The devil offered Jesus a counterfeit throne without sacrifice, a crown without a cross. But Jesus rejected it with authority: “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve.” — Matthew 4:10 Notice: Jesus didn’t say, “Please, I’m poor. Let me think about it.” He rebuked Satan instantly. This shows that: Jesus already owned the kingdoms by divine right[b] (John 1:3 – “Through Him all things were made”)[/b] He refused a shortcut to power. Poverty was never the issue — obedience was. 3. WHY DID JESUS TELL PETER TO FISH FOR COIN TO PAY HIS TAX? (Matthew 17:24–27) Scripture: “…go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for My tax and yours.” — Matthew 17:27 Explanation: This wasn’t a sign of being broke — this was a miracle of sovereign supply. He didn’t ask the disciples to go and beg. He didn’t launch a fundraiser. He commanded creation to provide what was needed. This miracle is significant because: It showed Jesus had dominion over nature and wealth. It proved He could pay any debt supernaturally. He did it not because He was poor, but to avoid unnecessary offense (verse 27) Also, don’t forget: Jesus had a treasurer (Judas) and a bag of money, but still chose a miraculous route to show He is Lord over supply. If He was broke, there would’ve been no bag for Judas to steal from (John 12:6). 4. WHAT WAS JESUS’ RESPONSE TO NICODEMUS? (John 3:1–21) Scripture: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” — John 3:3 Explanation: Nicodemus wasn’t poor — he was a wealthy ruler of the Jews, a Pharisee, and member of the Sanhedrin (Israel’s religious and political elite). Yet Jesus didn’t speak to him about money, He addressed spiritual rebirth. Why? Because salvation is not about class — it’s about transformation. This conversation proves: Jesus spoke with kings and rulers, not just the poor. He ministered to all levels of society, including the rich. His mission was to change hearts, not to dwell in poverty. Also remember: Nicodemus brought 75 pounds of myrrh and aloes for Jesus’ burial (John 19:39) — a rich man’s gift. If Jesus was anti-wealth, He would’ve rejected it. 5. HOW DID JESUS GET THE CAMEL/DONKEY HE RODE INTO JERUSALEM? (Luke 19:29–35) Scripture: “Go to the village ahead of you… you will find a colt tied there… Untie it and bring it here. If anyone asks you, say: ‘The Lord has need of it.’” — Luke 19:30–31 Explanation: This wasn’t about borrowing because of poverty — this was about prophetic fulfillment. Jesus was fulfilling Zechariah 9:9: “Behold, your King comes to you… lowly and riding on a donkey.” But don’t miss the point: He didn’t beg for it. He commanded it with royal authority. The owners gave it because of the weight of His name — “The Lord has need of it.” That’s not poverty. That’s influence and dominion. Also, the people laid their garments and palm branches before Him (Luke 19:36–38). That’s the red carpet treatment for a King. The donkey was a symbol of royalty, not lack. DID JESUS MOVE WITH POOR PEOPLE? Yes, some disciples were once poor, but He didn’t leave them there. He transformed them: Peter went from a struggling fisherman to a man who healed the sick with his shadow (Acts 5:15) Matthew was a former tax collector (wealthy background) Joseph of Arimathea (who buried Jesus) was a rich man and a disciple (Matthew 27:57). Women who followed Jesus were financiers of His ministry (Luke 8:1–3) Jesus’ goal was always transformation — never conformity to poverty. CONCLUSION: Jesus was not poor — He was intentional, prophetic, and full of dominion. Every act He did was to: Reveal the Kingdom. Expose hypocrisy. Model power, not poverty. To claim He was poor is to misinterpret His mission. Let's not use emotional, dark psychology to justify weak theology. Jesus came to raise us up, not to leave us low. |
By Pastor Kingsley Asian JESUS HATES POVERTY AND NEVER VISITED THE POOR IN THEIR HOUSES: I STAND WITH PAPA IBEYIOME. INTRODUCTION A few months ago, the Apostolic General, my father and mentor in the faith, Pastor David Ibiyeomie, declared a truth so sharp; it shook religious tables and rattled spiritual ignorance: He declared Boldly; “Jesus hates poverty and never visited the poor in their houses.” Instantly, the internet exploded. Social media critics rose like a mob. Bloggers screamed. Keyboard preachers argued. Emotion was louder than sound reasoning. But despite all the noise, not one critic could disprove that truth with scripture. Not one! They spoke opinions. They quoted motivational quotes. They paraded philosophical pity. But the WORD remained unchallenged. So today, I have taken up the mantle to present 10 clear, scripturally backed reasons that don’t just support Papa Ibeyiome's statement — they amplify it. Let it be known in this generation: Jesus hated, and still hates poverty. All through his walk on earth, He didn’t endorse it, visit it, or teach it. He came to destroy it and usher in a kingdom of supernatural supply! That's what Papa Ibeyiome said, and he's still standing by it. Now Here are 10 EXPANDED, SCRIPTURE-SOAKED PROOFS “Jesus hates poverty and never visited the poor in their houses.” 1. JESUS CAME TO DELIVER THE POOR — NOT TO SIT DOWN IN POVERTY WITH THEM Luke 4:18 says: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor…” The poor were never meant to be Jesus’ final destination — they were His first assignment. Poverty was never His companion — it was His target for destruction. When the Bible says “He came to preach the gospel to the poor,” it doesn’t mean He came to validate their suffering. He came to terminate it! Same way; He came to preach repentance to sinners doesn't mean He came to validated sin. No, never. The same way he defeated sin, He also defeated poverty. If sin, that was defeated on the cross can no longer conquer a believer, then poverty, that was also defeated on the cross should not also conquer a believer. The anointing upon Jesus was solution-oriented, not sympathy-driven. If Jesus wanted to endorse poverty, He wouldn’t need the anointing. But the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him to lift the poor out of shame, not to make poverty a doctrine. His presence elevated, empowered, and enriched. Poverty had no place to sit around Jesus — it was always evicted! 2. JESUS NEVER ENTERED A POOR MAN’S HOUSE — ONLY THE RICH AND INFLUENTIAL Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus ministered to the poor, fed the poor, and loved the poor, but He never entered or dwelt in the house of a poor man. Every recorded instance of Him visiting someone’s home shows that He only entered the houses of the wealthy, powerful, or prominent. Here are six solid scriptural proofs: a) Zacchaeus – A Wealthy Chief Tax Collector Luke 19:5-7 – “Zacchaeus, come down; for today I must abide at thy house.” Zacchaeus was rich and influential. As chief tax collector, he was a high-ranking government official. Jesus publicly chose to visit his house, not that of the struggling crowds around him. b) Simon the Leper – A Wealthy Man Who Hosted Feasts: Mark 14:3 – “And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as He sat at meat…” Simon was not just a leper; he was wealthy enough to host Jesus and others in a banquet setting. Poor men don’t throw feasts. This man had means, servants, and space to entertain. c) Jairus – A Ruler of the Synagogue: Mark 5:22, 38-40 – “And behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name… and He came to the house of the ruler…” Jairus was a highly respected and wealthy religious leader. Jesus walked into his house, raised his daughter, and demonstrated dominion. He didn’t go to the homes of beggars — He entered the homes of leaders. d) Peter – A Homeowner with a Family and Occupation: Matthew 8:14 – “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother laid…” Peter wasn’t a beggar — he owned a house, had a wife, and ran a fishing business. Jesus healed in his home because he had stability, responsibility, and resource. e) Mary, Martha, and Lazarus – A Family of Wealth and Substance: John 12:1-3 – “…they made Him a supper; and Martha served…” This family was known for their hospitality and wealth. They hosted Jesus multiple times. Lazarus had a tomb — not everyone in that day had private burial spaces. Mary poured very costly perfume on Jesus' feet, confirming they were not poor. f) The Upper Room – A Furnished, Large Guest Chamber: Luke 22:11-12 – “...the master of the house saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber… he shall show you a large upper room furnished…” Even at the Last Supper, Jesus didn’t eat in a hut or tent. He arranged a large, furnished hall owned by a notable man. It was organized, elegant, and private — not the environment of poverty. Conclusion of this Point: From Zacchaeus to Jairus, Simon, Peter, Lazarus’ family, and the owner of the Upper Room, Jesus consistently entered only the homes of people with means, influence, or substance. The poor received His miracles, but He never settled in their homes — because He came to bring them out of lack, not live in it with them. These are not coincidences. Jesus moved among those who could honor His presence, not beg for pity. You don’t house kings in leaking huts. You host them in places of dignity. That alone tells you how Jesus saw poverty — unfit to host the glory. 3. JESUS MULTIPLIED RESOURCES, HE NEVER TOLD ANYONE TO “ENDURE” LACK Matthew 14:13–21 records one of the most profound displays of divine provision. Faced with over 5,000 hungry people, Jesus didn’t tell the crowd, “Manage your hunger.” He didn’t say, “Let’s split this bread into crumbs.” No! He blessed the little and multiplied it. Twelve baskets were left over — not because of luck, but because Jesus was manifesting the abundance of His Kingdom. There’s nothing holy about suffering. Scarcity doesn’t glorify God. He could’ve said, “Let them fast and pray,” but instead He demonstrated that when heaven is involved, lack disappears. He repeated the same miracle again in Matthew 15:32–38, feeding 4,000 men, plus women and children. Why? Because Jesus was setting a standard — those who follow Him will not beg for bread (Psalm 37:25). He fed them, filled them, and left surplus. That is not a poor man’s signature — it is divine abundance on display. 4. JESUS PULLED MONEY OUT OF A FISH’S MOUTH — PROVING HIS DOMINION OVER SUPPLY Matthew 17:27: Jesus said to Peter, “…go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the fish that comes up. When you open its mouth, you will find a coin.” This is not just a miracle — it is a prophetic statement to poverty. It means: “Even creation will surrender wealth to those who walk in divine authority.” No bank? No problem. No purse? Heaven will open the mouth of nature to answer your need. This miracle wasn’t an accident — it was a message to the earth realm: when Jesus is involved, shortage dies and resources obey. You cannot be broke and command gold from fish. Only kings do that. That miracle is more than money — it's a proof that Jesus controlled provision, not the other way around. 5. JESUS CELEBRATED COSTLY WORSHIP AND REBUKED POVERTY MENTALITY In John 12:1–7, Mary poured an alabaster box of perfume worth one year’s wages on Jesus’ feet. Judas Iscariot, the religious thief, shouted: “Why wasn’t this sold and given to the poor?” What did Jesus say? “Leave her alone.” He defended extravagance! He approved it as worship. He didn’t say, “Poverty is good. Give to the poor.” He said, “She did this for My burial.” Jesus exposed the real poverty spirit — not in Mary’s giving, but in Judas’ fake concern. Poor thinking always attacks abundance. But true worship will always provoke expensive offerings. If poverty was godly, Jesus would have rebuked Mary. Instead, He silenced Judas. 6. JESUS TAUGHT GROWTH, PROFIT, AND MULTIPLICATION — NEVER SURVIVAL Luke 19:12–26 tells the parable of the ten minas. The one who multiplied his gift got promotion. The one who hid his talent got rebuked and lost what he had. Jesus didn’t say, “At least you didn’t waste it.” No! He called him a wicked and lazy servant. Heaven doesn’t reward stagnation. The Kingdom of God is an economy of expansion. He said: “To him who has, more will be given; and to him who has not, even what he has shall be taken.” That’s not socialist compassion. That’s Kingdom law. Jesus showed that He expects results, profit, fruitfulness. Poverty has no praise in God’s system. Increase is proof of obedience. 7. JESUS HAD A TREASURER — AND YOU DON’T NEED ONE UNLESS YOU’VE GOT MONEY TO MANAGE John 12:6: Judas was stealing from the ministry money bag. Pause and think: If there was nothing in that bag, why would Judas bother to steal? If Jesus was poor, why have a treasurer at all? Poor people don’t hire accountants. Broke men don’t carry bags full of money. Jesus had enough resources that Judas could steal and no one noticed. The disciples didn’t complain that the ministry was broke. They didn’t accuse Jesus of mismanaging funds. He ran a heaven-funded operation, not a roadside ministry. And still, not once did He ask the crowd to donate. Why? He was loaded and resourced from above! 8. JESUS REPRESENTED A KINGDOM WHERE GOLD IS FLOOR, NOT TREASURE Revelation 21:21 says the streets of the New Jerusalem — the city of our God — are pure gold. In Heaven’s economy, gold is not luxury — it’s construction material. Jesus came as the ambassador of that Kingdom. He didn’t come to teach people how to adapt to poverty, but to show them how to manifest the wealth of Heaven on Earth. He taught men to pray “Thy Kingdom come” — including its economy. So how can that same Jesus encourage men to stay broke, when His Kingdom walks on what we call treasure? 9. JESUS’ MINISTRY WAS FINANCED BY WOMEN OF WEALTH — NOT BY THE POOR Luke 8:1–3 tells us that Jesus was financially supported by Joanna (the wife of Herod’s steward), Susanna, and many others who gave from their substance. These were not beggars or commoners. These were women of influence and affluence. They didn’t just “give what they had” — they funded His ministry consistently. Jesus never knocked on doors begging for food. He didn’t say, “The Son of Man is hungry, please assist.” No. His ministry was well oiled and well sponsored. He was so secure in His backing that He could even tell His disciples, “Don’t take purse or bag, a worker is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:4–7). 10. JESUS BECAME POOR ONLY ON THE CROSS — TO DELIVER US FROM POVERTY PERMANENTLY 2 Corinthians 8:9 says, “Though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich.” Let’s be clear: that “poverty” happened on the Cross, not during His earthly ministry. It was a momentary exchange, not a lifestyle. He was rich — that was His nature. He became poor — that was His mission. He took our place — that was His sacrifice. Jesus was never poor by condition — He became poor by substitution, just like He became sin to make us righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21). And the purpose? That we might be rich — spiritually, mentally, materially, eternally. Any theology that keeps you broke is insulting the blood that was shed to lift you. FINAL CONCLUSION Jesus is not a mascot of misery — He is a King of GLORY. He didn’t teach survival — He taught dominion. He didn’t endorse poverty — He dismantled it. He didn’t visit the poor — He came to set them free! And I prophesy over your life: From today, lack dies in your destiny! Shame is swallowed by abundance! The same Jesus who never entered a poor man’s house will enter yours in wealth and wonder! Pastor Kingsley Asian Pastor Kingsley Asian is a Preacher and Commentator on Public Issues.
|
Still Available |
IPhone 13 (128) Sent Directly from the USA (Almost Brand New) Never used in Nigeria. Battery Life - 90% 570k Available in Uyo WhatsApp 07064199800
|
Sen. Akpabio and Gov. Umo Eno
|
Opinion: By PastorKay The Betrayer’s Blueprint: Why Umo Eno Must Flee Akpabio’s Political Trap. Governor Umo Eno must tread carefully. The man he’s trying to please—Senator Godswill Akpabio—is a master of betrayal with a long history of using men and discarding them when they no longer serve his ambition. Let’s begin with Obong Victor Attah: Akpabio would not be in politics today if not for this man. He was languishing in Lagos, barely surviving in a struggling law practice when Obong Attah left the comfort of Uyo and went to Lagos to pick him up. He brought him to Akwa Ibom and made him Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs. That was the launchpad of Akpabio’s political career. But how did he repay this political father? He turned his back on him completely. He betrayed him. He humiliated him. He pushed him out of the political circle and to this very day, Akpabio does not want to hear the name “Attah.” That’s not just ungrateful—it’s wicked. Then came Senator John James Akpanudoedehe: History will vindicate this truth: Akpanudoedehe was the backbone that made Akpabio governor. He campaigned for him, fought for him, built alliances, and ensured he got the ticket. In return, Akpabio gave him the FCT Minister of State position. But the moment he settled into power, he threw Udoedehe into political oblivion. He locked every door against him and pushed him into the background of Akwa Ibom politics where he remains sidelined to this day. That’s betrayal served cold. Umana Okon Umana: Obong Umana was not just a political ally—he was Akpabio’s trusted brother in arms. He used his own money to sponsor Akpabio’s governorship bid. He helped coordinate the political machinery. In appreciation, Akpabio made him SSG and gave his word that the governorship would one day be his. But when that time came, Akpabio betrayed him. He fought him bitterly, blocked him, and destroyed every structure Umana had built. Till today, Umana is still recovering from the political wounds Akpabio inflicted. Obong Nsima Ekere: Ekere suffered a similar fate. He was another trusted loyalist. Akpabio looked him in the eye and promised him he would be his successor. Nsima believed him. He served, invested, built, and remained loyal. But when the time came, Akpabio denied him. Nsima had to leave PDP because of that betrayal. But even in APC, Akpabio still came after him. He hijacked the party Nsima helped grow and has been suffocating his relevance ever since. That’s not politics—it’s treachery. Then there is Udom Emmanuel: Perhaps the most painful betrayal of them all. Udom was never a politician. He was a banker. Akpabio picked him, dressed him, marketed him, and imposed him on Akwa Ibom people. He called him the “best man to succeed him.” And Udom believed it. But when Udom decided not to be a puppet, Akpabio snapped. He defected to APC and declared war on the very house he built. He fought Udom with every weapon he could find—spiritually, politically, financially. That is the fate of anyone who refuses to bow to Akpabio’s control. Now the same Akpabio is stretching out a hand to Umo Eno. It may look like an invitation to power-sharing, but in truth, it is a well-laid trap. Akpabio is not known for sharing influence. He doesn’t build relationships; he builds ladders. And once he’s done climbing, he kicks the ladder away and walks on. Umo Eno must open his eyes and read the signs. If Victor Attah could be dumped, if Udoedehe could be silenced, if Umana could be crushed, if Nsima could be sidelined, and if Udom could be betrayed—who exactly does Umo Eno think he is to be treated any better? Akpabio is not looking for a partner. He’s looking for a pawn. And the moment Umo Eno loses political independence, he will become a governor in name but a political houseboy in function. He will lose the trust of his base, betray the mandate given to him by the PDP, and wreck the stability of Akwa Ibom politics. Conclusion: A Trap Disguised as an Invitation Senator Godswill Akpabio is a political lion, yes—but even lions eat their own cubs when hungry. Umo Eno must realize that aligning too closely with Akpabio, especially by dumping PDP, is not political strategy—it’s political suicide. Let him maintain respect, yes. Collaborate for development, yes. But defect? Never. He must remember: Akpabio doesn’t build partnerships. He builds ladders. And when he’s done climbing, he burns them. PastorKay is a Political Analyst and Commentator.
|
babdap:Join them in court... If you want to see evidence..! |
Resident doctors kick as NUC upgrades pharmacy, physiotherapy, optometry to ‘doctor ‘ statushttps://businessday.ng/news/article/resident-doctors-kick-as-nuc-upgrades-pharmacy-physiotherapy-optometry-to-doctor-status/
|
The op is doing exactly the same thing he's preaching against. According to you, The People who are going against GTB because of VDM are childish and wicked. Now tell me, you who refuse to send that person 100k just because he or she is taking personal decision to fight for the release of her idol and influencer. Who is more childish and who is more wicked..? |
Misterone:What makes it trash..? |
Goodluck and Tinubu
|
1. Redemption Narrative & Global Political Pattern
|
1nice:The man himself looks hungry. Comparing the man in the two videos, you will discover that he looked healthier in the previous video than he is looking now. Terrible hunger must have dealt a great deal with him. |
"...Asiwaju will handle the Economy.... While Shettima will handle insecurity..." How many of you Remember this Quote..? |
Absolutely — here are 5 strong, no-fluff reasons why Peter Obi should lead the opposition coalition in 2027:
|
There have been three African popes in the history of the Catholic Church, all from the early centuries of Christianity, when North Africa (especially modern-day Tunisia and Algeria) was a major center of Christian life and thought. Here they are: 1. Pope Victor I Reign: 189–199 AD Origin: Roman Africa (likely modern-day Tunisia) Notable for: Being the first pope from Africa and advocating for the Latin language in the Church. He also took a strong stance on the date of Easter. 2. Pope Miltiades (also called Melchiades) Reign: 311–314 AD Origin: Roman Africa Notable for: Serving as pope during Emperor Constantine’s rise. He oversaw the Church's transition from persecution to peace after the Edict of Milan. 3. Pope Gelasius I Reign: 492–496 AD Origin: Born in Roman Africa (some sources say he may have been of Berber descent) Notable for: A strong theological mind, he defined the relationship between Church and State in the famous doctrine of "two powers": the sacred authority of priests and the royal power. These popes were part of the Roman Empire’s African provinces, where Christianity flourished in the early centuries. While they were not sub-Saharan Africans, they were ethnically and geographically African by Roman standards. |
AdesegunSanni89:If this is true, that means He played a very wrong politics. Struggled to capture the party structure from Amaechi and stilled asked his delegates to vote Amaechi..? Who was he decieving..? |
Can you predict the next Pope..? |
The College of Cardinals currently comprises 252 members, of whom 134 are eligible to vote—those under the age of 80. The vast majority of the electors—over 80%—were appointed by Pope Francis, with the remainder being holdovers from the pontificates of Benedict XVI and John Paul II. The Archbishop Emeritus of Valencia, will not take part in the election of the next pope due to health concerns. His withdrawal reduces Spain’s electoral voice in the conclave from seven cardinals to six and brings the total number of voting cardinals worldwide from 135 to 134. Cañizares, 79, has been a key player in the Spanish Church for decades. Appointed cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006, he has served not only as archbishop in both Toledo and Valencia but also as vice president of the Spanish Bishops’ Conference across two separate terms. His deep ties to both Rome and Spanish Catholicism made him a prominent voice in Church affairs, both national and global. His decision to sit out the conclave—widely expected to convene in early May following the death of Pope Francis—was not unexpected. Rumors regarding his declining health had already been circulating. Despite his absence, Spain remains among the countries with one of the largest delegations to the conclave. The six Spanish-born electors still participating are a mix of home-based and international figures. They include José Cobo, current Archbishop of Madrid; his predecessor Carlos Osoro; Juan José Omella, Archbishop of Barcelona; Ángel Fernández Artime, formerly head of the Salesians and now serving in the Vatican’s Dicastery for Religious Life; Cristóbal López, Archbishop of Rabat; and Francisco Javier Bustillo, Bishop of Ajaccio in Corsica. These names reflect the growing international reach of the Spanish Church. While three are rooted within Spain’s episcopal structure, others serve globally, demonstrating how Spanish influence within the Church now extends beyond Iberian borders. The College of Cardinals currently comprises 252 members, of whom 134 are eligible to vote—those under the age of 80. The vast majority of the electors—over 80%—were appointed by Pope Francis, with the remainder being holdovers from the pontificates of Benedict XVI and John Paul II. This composition reflects Francis’ efforts to internationalize the College, with fewer Europeans and a stronger presence from the global south. Still, Europe maintains the largest block of electors, accounting for nearly 40%. The Americas follow, making up more than a quarter of the voting body, with Africa, Asia, and Oceania composing the rest. The exclusion of Italian Cardinal Angelo Becciu, sanctioned for financial misconduct, further trims the list of voters. Yet the overall shape of the conclave points to the global and multicultural face of the Church that Pope Francis so ardently cultivated during his papacy. Though the Church’s laws allow for any baptized male to be elected pope, the historical precedent remains firmly set: the next pontiff will almost certainly come from within the College of Cardinals. And while Spain’s numerical representation has narrowed, its theological and pastoral contributions remain significant. Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link. https://zenit.org/2025/04/22/cardinal-elector-announces-he-will-not-go-to-conclave-who-is-he-and-why/
|