Good post by one of the bloggers at Geeeez on the various reasons to suspect that the election of Obama was "engineered" shall we say, both this election and the 2008 election and that in fact Obama's entire career was engineered. Fraud fraud fraud.
I personally know of some people who are involved in the investigations of the most recent voter fraud in this election, but also the election that kept Harry Reid in office when Sharron Angle had the votes. Can it be proved? Well, even if it can be the proof will be attacked, twisted, smeared and "discredited" by more fraud. A few of us will know it for what it is, but is it going to matter?
Chris Pinto's radio show for the 19th dealt with the film made BY DEMOCRATS after Obama's election in '08 about voter fraud then that disenfranchised Hillary Clinton who by their reckoning rightly won the nomination.
This is terrible judgment indeed, Lord, will you never have mercy on us again, is it all over for good?
On this note, Geeez also has a post from yesterday quoting from Foursquare pastor and president Jack Hayford on how the Church is to blame for all this, and while I believe he's right in general I don't think he's seen the whole problem, about Christians who don't keep separate from the world and from false teachers which I've posted on recently. In fact his own denomination is highly questionable in itself as well as in its acceptance of Catholicism, the likes of Benny Hinn and other apostate groups.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Why is the Nation so Polarized? (No real mystery)
That's what the headline at Yahoo asks. And we ARE that polarized. There is just about NO agreement between the two sides and there is plenty of rancor on both sides toward the other. Here's the story at Yahoo, It's a 50-50 Nation Give or Take
There are about 20 thousand comments there already but I can't wade through that lot. Lot of opinion that the media has caused the divide.
I think it's pretty obvious myself. The country has been getting more and more polarized by the push against Christian and traditional values that were held by a majority from the founding, the push that picked up big momentum in the sixties and keeps on going, fueled by propaganda that characterizes us as "haters" rather than the defenders of truth we are -- defenders of truth, social order, righteousness, which scripture says "exalts a nation" and certainly protects a nation against God's wrath; the "salt" that keeps a nation from succumbing to rot through the fallen nature. Now the nation is wide open for God's wrath.
The form of it that got up such a head of steam in the sixties, with all the "liberation" movements, should really be characterized as The Sin Liberation Movement as a whole. We're now "liberated" to commit sexual sins with impunity that were opposed by ALL societies throughout history, though most strongly in Christian societies, until the last few decades, and "liberated" to murder our unborn babies, calling it "choice," etc. "Liberated" BY THE GOVERNMENT you know. If gay marriage becomes law it will be the GOVERNMENT sanctioning it, and it's primarily what the leadership does that calls down God's judgment against a nation.
Opposition to this trend is what they are calling "hate" on the other side. They'd kill us for our "hate."
A Christian absolutely CANNOT give in on these things and there are apparently quite a few nonbeliever traditionalists who feel the same way so far. That includes socialism versus free enterprise because socialism is basically theft by the government which is a violation of God's law. Name it, it's along these lines we are polarized. Good versus evil I call it.
There are about 20 thousand comments there already but I can't wade through that lot. Lot of opinion that the media has caused the divide.
I think it's pretty obvious myself. The country has been getting more and more polarized by the push against Christian and traditional values that were held by a majority from the founding, the push that picked up big momentum in the sixties and keeps on going, fueled by propaganda that characterizes us as "haters" rather than the defenders of truth we are -- defenders of truth, social order, righteousness, which scripture says "exalts a nation" and certainly protects a nation against God's wrath; the "salt" that keeps a nation from succumbing to rot through the fallen nature. Now the nation is wide open for God's wrath.
The form of it that got up such a head of steam in the sixties, with all the "liberation" movements, should really be characterized as The Sin Liberation Movement as a whole. We're now "liberated" to commit sexual sins with impunity that were opposed by ALL societies throughout history, though most strongly in Christian societies, until the last few decades, and "liberated" to murder our unborn babies, calling it "choice," etc. "Liberated" BY THE GOVERNMENT you know. If gay marriage becomes law it will be the GOVERNMENT sanctioning it, and it's primarily what the leadership does that calls down God's judgment against a nation.
Opposition to this trend is what they are calling "hate" on the other side. They'd kill us for our "hate."
A Christian absolutely CANNOT give in on these things and there are apparently quite a few nonbeliever traditionalists who feel the same way so far. That includes socialism versus free enterprise because socialism is basically theft by the government which is a violation of God's law. Name it, it's along these lines we are polarized. Good versus evil I call it.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
The Nation Voted for Judgment
In response to another conservative, whose opinion you can figure out from the response:
I agree the nation chose judgment, but in my opinion Romney would at best have been Judgment Lite anyway, a slower road to judgment.
At one point he voted for late term abortion himself and for gay marriage. The man changed with the wind. Overall it seems he would have been better for the country, that his election would mean God was blessing us at least to some extent, but we have to remember that Romney also represents rejection of God and apostasy of the Church simply by being a Mormon. One might say Obama's closet Muslim beliefs are worse but I'm not completely sure, in God's eyes. Mormonism is a false representation of God, of Jesus Christ, of the gospel of salvation, even in a more direct and blasphemous way than Islam is, or at least AS bad. (By the way there is an old book called Mormonism, America's Islam, sorry don't remember much about it I'll have to look it up).
Our merely being stuck with the choice between Obama and Romney already demonstrates that the nation IS under judgment, or it could be said that in itself the choice IS judgment, both candidates representing God's displeasure with this nation. In many ways Romney looked a lot better to conservative eyes, but I wonder if conservative eyes see much the way God's eyes do.
BUT I have to admit that we haven't had a President in many many years that could be said to have been in God's will anyway. I won't speculate how far back. We've been under judgment a long time.
Again, the best Romney would have been is a slower approach to an increasingly horrible Judgment.
And then there's the further proof that we're on the slide to oblivion in the fact that Colorado and Washington legalized RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA. Well, they don't know what they are doing, poor blind fallen people, but how fast we've slid toward the abode of demons! Oh once-Christian America.
I've got to admit I would have felt relieved if Romney had won but I'm not sure why or, to be more accurate, given what I've said above, it couldn't be a rational response.
==========
3 PM Everybody I've heard from today has said, almost in the same words, "we're done, it's over." America is gone forever. The Obama people have no clue. it's going to hit them too eventually.
I agree the nation chose judgment, but in my opinion Romney would at best have been Judgment Lite anyway, a slower road to judgment.
At one point he voted for late term abortion himself and for gay marriage. The man changed with the wind. Overall it seems he would have been better for the country, that his election would mean God was blessing us at least to some extent, but we have to remember that Romney also represents rejection of God and apostasy of the Church simply by being a Mormon. One might say Obama's closet Muslim beliefs are worse but I'm not completely sure, in God's eyes. Mormonism is a false representation of God, of Jesus Christ, of the gospel of salvation, even in a more direct and blasphemous way than Islam is, or at least AS bad. (By the way there is an old book called Mormonism, America's Islam, sorry don't remember much about it I'll have to look it up).
Our merely being stuck with the choice between Obama and Romney already demonstrates that the nation IS under judgment, or it could be said that in itself the choice IS judgment, both candidates representing God's displeasure with this nation. In many ways Romney looked a lot better to conservative eyes, but I wonder if conservative eyes see much the way God's eyes do.
BUT I have to admit that we haven't had a President in many many years that could be said to have been in God's will anyway. I won't speculate how far back. We've been under judgment a long time.
Again, the best Romney would have been is a slower approach to an increasingly horrible Judgment.
And then there's the further proof that we're on the slide to oblivion in the fact that Colorado and Washington legalized RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA. Well, they don't know what they are doing, poor blind fallen people, but how fast we've slid toward the abode of demons! Oh once-Christian America.
I've got to admit I would have felt relieved if Romney had won but I'm not sure why or, to be more accurate, given what I've said above, it couldn't be a rational response.
==========
3 PM Everybody I've heard from today has said, almost in the same words, "we're done, it's over." America is gone forever. The Obama people have no clue. it's going to hit them too eventually.
Friday, September 21, 2012
More evidence from the "birthers"
This was at the political blog Geeeez recently. I'd seen this information before but never got around to posting it so here it is, another bit of the evidence that something is definitely being hidden about Obama's birth.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Two films: The Firefighters of 9/11 and the Boatlift of 9/11
Sometimes it's good to be reminded of the human side of 9/11 while getting so absorbed in the fact of its being God's judgment on the nation. This is a film I saw fairly soon after the attack, done by two French brothers who just happened to be filming a documentary about the training of firefighters when 9/11 came along. They were filming at the fire station closest to the WTC when the towers were hit and the event became the focus of the film as the firefighters were of course called to the scene.
When I first saw the film, certain noises from within the burning tower were so clearly and depressingly identified as the sound of bodies hitting the ground outside, having fallen from a great height above, I've never been the slightest bit tempted to interpret those noises as the controlled demolition explosions the "inside job" conspiracy thinkers try to make of it. But I'm watching it again so I'll see if I still agree with my first impression.
And it's very clear: They all know it's falling bodies. It starts about 35:50 on the counter.
And here's another great film about the people involved in 9/11, the very touching story of the enormous variety of boats and their captains who came to rescue people stranded at the south end of Manhattan island as the WTC burned.
When I first saw the film, certain noises from within the burning tower were so clearly and depressingly identified as the sound of bodies hitting the ground outside, having fallen from a great height above, I've never been the slightest bit tempted to interpret those noises as the controlled demolition explosions the "inside job" conspiracy thinkers try to make of it. But I'm watching it again so I'll see if I still agree with my first impression.
And it's very clear: They all know it's falling bodies. It starts about 35:50 on the counter.
And here's another great film about the people involved in 9/11, the very touching story of the enormous variety of boats and their captains who came to rescue people stranded at the south end of Manhattan island as the WTC burned.
Friday, August 31, 2012
The Illogic of the "Right" to Abortion: Do Women REALLY Want the "Choice" to Kill Their Own Babies?
"But it's a human being" says the show host. "So is the woman," says the "pro-choice" guest. And she wants to be sure that THIS human being's "rights" are protected. It's considered a great evil and something women will vote against, to deny them this "right" to abortion.
Obviously they just aren't thinking this through. Even some on the "pro-choice" side will admit that yes, we're talking about a living human being in the womb here, but they go right on past that to assert that the woman is ALSO a living human being and HER rights count TOO, or even MORE, and so on and so forth, just sailing right on past the implication that they are advocating KILLING that OTHER human being in order to protect the woman's "rights" (and often these days killing it in viciously brutal ways too, even when the child is near to being born).
Do women REALLY want the right to commit MURDER? I don't think so. I think we've been sold a lie, and a great ideological fog has descended over this issue.
Do we have such murdering hearts? There was a time, and in fact it may still go on in some parts of the world, when unwanted infants were put out to die after birth. If they'd had safe means of abortion they'd no doubt have killed their babies that way, but infanticide was the option at the time. I think it's hard today, even for the most committed "pro-choice" advocate, to imagine doing that with a clear conscience, one has to imagine a completely other mental set than we have grown up with today in a western society, to commit out and out murder of an infant. Don't most of us want to rush to the abandoned infant and save it and protect it? I think we do. Yes, even the "pro-choicers" do.
We can SEE the humanness of the born infant and can be moved by its plight. But we are committing that same murder in abortion nevertheless, only we're hiding it from ourselves because the unborn baby isn't visible. Truly it must be "visible" in a certain sense to our "mind's eye," but ideology has twisted things so that we ignore that picture. We keep the focus on the woman and her "rights" and manage to fog over the fact that this "right," this "choice" that is being advocated in such tones of righteous indignation is in fact a right and a choice to commit the killing of another human being -- and not just some anonymous human being either, whose life we should want to protect anyway, but your own flesh and blood, your own child. Even when they seem to acknowledge this fact they run right past it showing they haven't really let themselves think about its implications. We don't dare stop and think too hard about that these days, we must preserve it as a "woman's" issue, a "right" or a "choice."
Sometimes you'll hear someone say in serious or even mournful tones that whether or not to abort a baby is a very "private" and "personal" decision, and a very "difficult" choice that people must make, not something to be done lightly. Which superficially seems to acknowledge the moral dimension of the problem, but if you REALLY think it through, it's like saying "It's a very difficult personal choice to kill a human being, and we should respect people's privacy about such an important decision."
Why is it this is not recognized as what is really being said? Because we're not allowed to think it. Ideological fog.
Even the child of rape or incest is a human being. If you know that how can you grant the "right" to kill THAT child either?
Again, knowing that, recognizing that, is what doesn't happen because the propaganda, the ideology, operates to prevent it.
It's sad when an unwanted child is conceived, whatever the reason for its not being wanted. It's sad for the child and it's sad for the parent or parents. It is a hardship for some women when that happens, although face it, for most these days it's not really a hardship, it's more an inconvenience, and yet murdering it is considered the "righteous" thing to do.
The whole thing goes back to the promotion of "sexual freedom" of course, but that's another topic for another time --but I'll mention that you might want to see Chris Pinto's film The Kinsey Syndrome for some insight into that evil movement that is destroying America. A stable prosperous society requires traditional marriage and traditional laws that confine sex to marriage.
But right now I just want to keep the fact up front that abortion kills a human being, and that women are NOT being done any favors by being given the "right" or the "choice" to commit murder. There are plenty of stories of women who later regretted having had an abortion, to the point of deep depression over it, when the truth of it got through to them. This is the TRUE heart of most women.
We've been sold a lie.
Obviously they just aren't thinking this through. Even some on the "pro-choice" side will admit that yes, we're talking about a living human being in the womb here, but they go right on past that to assert that the woman is ALSO a living human being and HER rights count TOO, or even MORE, and so on and so forth, just sailing right on past the implication that they are advocating KILLING that OTHER human being in order to protect the woman's "rights" (and often these days killing it in viciously brutal ways too, even when the child is near to being born).
Do women REALLY want the right to commit MURDER? I don't think so. I think we've been sold a lie, and a great ideological fog has descended over this issue.
Do we have such murdering hearts? There was a time, and in fact it may still go on in some parts of the world, when unwanted infants were put out to die after birth. If they'd had safe means of abortion they'd no doubt have killed their babies that way, but infanticide was the option at the time. I think it's hard today, even for the most committed "pro-choice" advocate, to imagine doing that with a clear conscience, one has to imagine a completely other mental set than we have grown up with today in a western society, to commit out and out murder of an infant. Don't most of us want to rush to the abandoned infant and save it and protect it? I think we do. Yes, even the "pro-choicers" do.
We can SEE the humanness of the born infant and can be moved by its plight. But we are committing that same murder in abortion nevertheless, only we're hiding it from ourselves because the unborn baby isn't visible. Truly it must be "visible" in a certain sense to our "mind's eye," but ideology has twisted things so that we ignore that picture. We keep the focus on the woman and her "rights" and manage to fog over the fact that this "right," this "choice" that is being advocated in such tones of righteous indignation is in fact a right and a choice to commit the killing of another human being -- and not just some anonymous human being either, whose life we should want to protect anyway, but your own flesh and blood, your own child. Even when they seem to acknowledge this fact they run right past it showing they haven't really let themselves think about its implications. We don't dare stop and think too hard about that these days, we must preserve it as a "woman's" issue, a "right" or a "choice."
Sometimes you'll hear someone say in serious or even mournful tones that whether or not to abort a baby is a very "private" and "personal" decision, and a very "difficult" choice that people must make, not something to be done lightly. Which superficially seems to acknowledge the moral dimension of the problem, but if you REALLY think it through, it's like saying "It's a very difficult personal choice to kill a human being, and we should respect people's privacy about such an important decision."
Why is it this is not recognized as what is really being said? Because we're not allowed to think it. Ideological fog.
Even the child of rape or incest is a human being. If you know that how can you grant the "right" to kill THAT child either?
Again, knowing that, recognizing that, is what doesn't happen because the propaganda, the ideology, operates to prevent it.
It's sad when an unwanted child is conceived, whatever the reason for its not being wanted. It's sad for the child and it's sad for the parent or parents. It is a hardship for some women when that happens, although face it, for most these days it's not really a hardship, it's more an inconvenience, and yet murdering it is considered the "righteous" thing to do.
The whole thing goes back to the promotion of "sexual freedom" of course, but that's another topic for another time --but I'll mention that you might want to see Chris Pinto's film The Kinsey Syndrome for some insight into that evil movement that is destroying America. A stable prosperous society requires traditional marriage and traditional laws that confine sex to marriage.
But right now I just want to keep the fact up front that abortion kills a human being, and that women are NOT being done any favors by being given the "right" or the "choice" to commit murder. There are plenty of stories of women who later regretted having had an abortion, to the point of deep depression over it, when the truth of it got through to them. This is the TRUE heart of most women.
We've been sold a lie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
