Jesus Christ Is Lord

That every knee should bow and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father!

Posts Tagged ‘mark of the beast’

Burning Incense To Caesar: Regarding Avigdor Lieberman’s Proposed Loyalty Oath In Israel

Posted by Job on February 27, 2009

Two things.

First, I am thoroughly shocked at the intense and pervasive anti – Israel and anti – Semitic feelings around the globe that has been growing exponentially since the September 11th terror attacks. Now I do have a theory on why SOME of this is taking place, specifically among certain corners of the left. First, there has always been a large anti – Semitic presence on the left, but it has been largely muzzled by an apparently pro – Jewish sentiment in that body. I said “apparently” because it was never legitimate, but rather many of these people’s using the Jews. First, Jews were a bold, intellectually vital, and financially necessary part of the radical left in its early days. Second, it was unbecoming to be an open anti – Semite while simultaneously agitating for equal or special rights for blacks, women, Hispanics, homosexuals, atheists etc. Third, and perhaps most important, Jews were very important as a strategic weapon against conservatives, which at the time was primarily led by anti – Semitic (or at least non – Zionist) paleoconservatives.

Now the situation has reversed itself. The radical left is now mainstream, fully in control of the government and further having made major inroads in our corporate and financial institutions. So, they no longer need the courageous leadership, brilliant ideas, or financial backing of Jewish socialists. Also, multiculturalism and relativism now make it entirely possible – indeed fashionable – to denounce Israel and Jewry as evil while glorifying suicide bombers who target Israeli schoolchildren as freedom fighter servants of “god” through the religion of peace. And most importantly, the left can no longer use the charge of anti-Semitism to attack the actions and motivations conservative opponents, because the paleoconservatism of the recent past has given way to a pro – Zionist neoconservatism, many of whose ideas and leaders come from the ranks of conservative Jews, and much of whose money, numbers, and organizing muscle comes from premillennial dispensational evangelical Christianity. So, where a conservative was often called “anti – Semite” as a political tactic in times past by leftist activists, modern leftist activists now bash Jews and Israel far more overtly, publicly, and viciously than the conservative WASP (or as it were Roman Catholic) bankers and politicians ever did in private, and now use “homophobe” as their weapon of choice against conservatives. The best example of this startling shift: where leftist Martin Luther King, Jr. was a fervent Zionist and employed communist Jews as his speechwriters, organizers, and strategists, Barack HUSSEIN Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright casts his lot with the Palestinian terrorists and counts Louis Farrakhan (and similar) among his support system. Not the Palestinians, mind you, for the overwhelming majority of Palestinians are not violent criminals, but people and groups who have blood on their hands and are thirsty for more of it. And where King was roundly criticized for his Zionist position, Obama and Wright were only challenged – and in an extremely muted fashion – by a few neoconservatives.  This is only explicable by a rapid and amazing rise in the climate of anti – Semitism (both that which exists and that which is tolerated in others) which can only be explained by the activity of evil spirits. 

So, it is in this context that Avigdor Lieberman is being called – amazingly – “Jewish Hitler” in some circles. I will not even bother to explain how such a moniker, such a comparison, is so grotesquely inaccurate and inappropriate that it can either only be made by someone who is unaware of Hitler’s ideology and behavior and is merely used to calling someone that you disagree with “a Nazi” (which does honestly seem to be increasingly the case … the media and the education system seem fine with willfully refusing to educate people about Hitler and the Nazi regime so that any view or ideology that they disagree with, including those in the New Testament, can be accused of either contributing to the Holocaust or leading us to a new one … a columnist for the Detroit Free Press actually claimed that George W. Bush’s proposals to cut taxes and create private Social Security accounts could lead to a state policy of exterminating low income people, and yes people like her often tend to be pro – abortion!).

And what makes Avigdor Lieberman so monstrous? Quite simply, his proposal for a loyalty oath, that all citizens be required to publicly express loyalty to Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state. Those who refuse have to options: to leave Israel (and if I am correct, it is at Israel’s expense!) or to remain there as a sort of second – class citizen. Lieberman has even stated that a person does not need to declare loyalty to Zionism, which comes with a lot of political and religious implications that a lot of people (including haredi Orthodox Jews!) cannot abide. Such a person merely needs to be willing to declare an acceptance of the fact that Israel exists now and of its continued existence in largely its current makeup and form (a secular western democracy with a mostly Jewish population where Orthodox Judaism plays a huge role – indeed a larger role than Christianity ever has in America, as it is modeled more closely after 19th century Lutheran Germany or Anglican England than America) – in Jewish government and institutions.

Jewish supporters of Lieberman’s proposed oath point out that the United States requires the same of people beocoming  naturalized United States citizens. That is a willfully false comparison, as Lieberman’s oath would be required of everyone, both natural born citizens and already naturalized citizens, as a requirement of retaining their citizenship. In America, it is practically impossible for a natural born or naturalized citizen to be stripped of his status against his will. 

However, Israel is not America. Enumerating the many differences between their legal code and its underlying assumptions and our own would be rather unwieldly, but suffice to say that a Christian could spend a year in an Israeli prison for giving a “Gideon’s Bible” containing the New Testament (as they of course all do) to a Jewish 12 year old. Like all parliamentary democracies, Israel lacks freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and other things that make America much more of a constitutional republic than a pure democracy. 

Also, what Israel chooses to do with its citizenry is ultimately a matter of state, not of the cross. And though I believe Lieberman’s proposal to be exceedingly unwise, as it would be the doings of a democratic state that is not only secular but “founded on and governed according to anti – Christian principles and values” (it is a Jewish state, after all, so cast aside your premillennial dispensational Christian Zionism long enough read the 1, 2, and 3rd John and take its contents seriously) as opposed to the doings of a church or other body of professed Bible believing Christians, my position must be neutral, one of the many things that has happened and will happen in this world until Jesus Christ comes back. 

Yet and still, I cannot restrain myself from considering this policy past and future. It reminds me of the persecution against Christians in the Roman Empire. Christians were required to swear loyalty to the Roman state – and its state religion – with Caesar as head of both the state and religion with the status of a minor god in the religion by signing a document and bowing before either Caesar or his effigy. People who did so received certification of having done so, and people found by authorities in a condition of not having this certification either had to burn incense to Caesar or his statue immediately, or be subject to arrest, torture, and death. This policy resulted in the deaths of Christians in numbers exceeding a million, and the imprisonment or torture of still more.

I think that it is fair to point out that some Christians interpret the “mark of the beast” portions of Revelation to refer to this time, while others – myself included – believe the Roman persecution to be a precursor to the much worse persecution still to come under the great tribulation.

With that in mind: consider this. Were Israel to actually implement Lieberman’s policy (which by the way would take major changes to Israel, including but not limited to a major redirection of public opinion, big changes of Israel’s laws, and a complete overhaul of the composition of their largely liberal courts, which are far more likely to sentence conservative Israelis to 6 months of community service for speech code violations for displaying shirts and bumper stickers with slogans offensive to Muslims – again, Israel has no freedom of speech – than approving a citizenship test), then in order to be viable and practical, the government would have to be able to differentiate between who has taken the loyalty oath and who hasn’t. (After all, Christians had various ways of evading detection and capture by the Romans.) This is not the case of apartheid South Africa, where it was very easy to use physical appearance to determine different treatment by government authorities. Israel is not even planning on automatically deporting those who reject the loyalty oath, but rather giving such people the option of remaining as second class citizens. 

So, how is this to be done except A) completing a national computerized database or registry of people who have  and haven’t declared a loyalty oath and B) requiring people to carry evidence of their loyalty and status with them on their person so that the government officials – and anyone else who decides to enact similar policies of their own, including banks, grocery stores, and other businesses – would be able to differentiate and treat people accordingly? Would it take the form of an identification card that a person would be forced to carry? Well, those can be forged. What about a government – issued microchip? 

But that is just Israel, you say? Wrong. Various interests in America have been promoting “national ID cards” and “national registries” for years to combat everything from legal immigration to voter fraud (not to mention databases of people allowed or not allowed to buy firearms, and also of sex crime offenders … are “hate crimes” offenders next?).  If Israel adopts a national registration and ID system to implement their loyalty oath policy, then other western style governments are very likely to emulate it for their own national ID systems to address their own (real and perceived) problems. As a matter of fact, dictatorships and other authoritarian regimes are even more likely to. 

So, for no other reason than that, Lieberman’s proposal is something to watch and think about, along with the many similar proposals in our own country, especially those who prefer national ID cards over simply building a border fence, or people who claim that there aren’t simple and local solutions to voter fraud.

Advertisements

Posted in Christian Persecution, Christian persecution America, Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 31 Comments »

CNN’s Creepy Hologram: The Image Of The Beast That All Will Worship?

Posted by Job on November 8, 2008

CNN states that they have big plans for this technology.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s Anti – Christ Universalism

Posted by Job on September 4, 2008

From True Discernment weblog.

from Berit kjos:

Believes Many Paths Lead to God

The Faith of Barack Obama written by New York Times best-selling author Stephen Mansfield was released in August by Thomas Nelson publishers. The book carries the endorsement of Archbishop Desmond Tutu on the front cover. Tutu, one of the global “Elders,” calls the book “perceptive and well-written.” The publisher’s description of the book reads: 

“…takes readers inside the mind, heart, and soul of presidential hopeful Barack Obama–as a person of faith, as a man, as an American, and possibly as our future commander in chief.”

 

Mansfield, says: “If a man’s faith is sincere, it is the most important thing about him, and it is impossible to understand who he is and how he will lead without first understanding the religious vision that informs his life.”

According to Mansfield, Obama is “raising the banner of what he hopes will be the faith-based politics of a new generation . . . and he will carry that banner to whatever heights of power his God and the American people allow.”

Recently, when Obama was interviewed by Rick Warren, Obama told Warren that Jesus Christ was his Lord and Savior. Yet this “banner” Obama raises is one that has an inter-spiritual foundation, representing a new kind of “Christianity,” one that looks more like Brian McLaren’s spirituality than traditional, biblical Christianity.

What emerges from this book is a glimpse of a man who has New Age philosophy, believing that other religions are legitimate paths to God, and all humanity is connected together (spiritually speaking – i.e., God is in all):

“Obama does clearly believe that the form of Christianity that he committed to at Trinity Church in 1985 is not the only path to God. ‘I am rooted in the Christian tradition,’ he has said. Nevertheless he asserts, ‘I believe there are many paths to the same place and that is a belief there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.’

 

“He first saw his broad embrace of faith modeled by his mother. ‘In our household,” he has explained, ‘The Bible, [t]he Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf … on Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to a church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.’” (p.55 of Mansfield’s book, quoting from Audacity of Hope, Obama, p. 203).

 

After his inter-spiritually-based upbringing, Obama later spent twenty years in a church, which promotes the panenthestic (God in all), inter-spiritual approach. In a 2006 article in United Church News, Obama stated that the teachings of the UCC (United Church of Christ), of which he was a member (Trinity United Church of Christ) until recently, are “foundation stones for his political work.” Just what are those “teachings” comprised of? On Trinity’s website, on the Yoga page, the following statement is highlighted:

 

“Within each [of] us is the seed of Divinity. Each Soul is divine. I bow to the divinity in us all!”

This is classic Hinduism that teaches that divinity resides in every human being. It is also the message of the New Age movement — man’s divinity!

In Obama’s own autobiography, Audacity of Hope, he calls himself a “progressive” (i.e., emerging or postmodern) and says: “We need to take faith seriously not simply to block the religious right but to engage all persons of faith in the larger project of American renewal” (p. 216). Echoing the sentiments of Rick Warren (a close friend of Obama, says Warren), he clarifies that partnerships between “religious and secular” will have to be built, and “each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration” (p. 216). He adds:

 

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.” (p. 218)

Obama insists that to base national “policy” on biblical truths “would be a dangerous thing” to do (p. 220).

There is one sentence in Audacity of Hope that sums up Barack Obama’s spirituality. He states:

“When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static (stable) text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations.” (p. 224) In other words, just as Tony Jones said in his book The New Christians, and just as other emergents consistently say, the truths in the written Word of God, the Bible, are not unchanging and cannot be looked upon as stable or immoveable. “New revelations” can bring about new “truths” . . . truth is fluid.

To be interspiritual (all paths lead to God), to be panentheistic (divinity is in all), to reject God’s Word, and to embrace mysticism is to be what Alice Bailey called a rejuvenated Christian, who is one who follows “another gospel” and “another Jesus” (II Corinthians 11:4).

 

“Jesus saith unto him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.’” (John 14:6)

Posted in Christianity, Islam, Muslim | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

Leading Corporate Diversity Firms Says Companies HAVE To Start Firing Christians!

Posted by Job on July 5, 2008

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Incidentally, I did not go hunting for this link. It was actually an advertisement that came up while I was reading my email!

This question is in response to a heated debate stirred by Asking the White Guys: Don’t Try This at Home, a blog entry by DiversityInc Partner and Cofounder Luke Visconti.

Question:

While I want to agree with you that a company shouldn’t have to allow employees to express (or live out) any and all values, I do think it’s a problematic position.  Since it is the law that companies may not discriminate based on race (among other things), then wouldn’t this essentially mean that you should be unemployable if you hold racist views? And if it becomes illegal to discriminate against homosexuals, then, if personal beliefs are grounds for firing, wouldn’t that make many evangelical Christians unemployable as well? While I don’t personally feel that people should discriminate in hiring based on either race or sexual orientation, to then say that other employees should be fired if they hold personal beliefs that discriminate against one of these groups does seem to be less than open-minded. It’s just closed-minded in a different way. Obviously if people can’t get along in the workplace, then someone has to be fired. But if they can function appropriately at work, then I’m uncomfortable with the idea that they should be let go based on private values. I‘d prefer to live in a country where nobody was racist or homophobic, but who gets to make the list of values which someone can be fired for not holding? Who gets to decide what diverse beliefs are healthy to have in the mix and which should be banned? While on any given example I’m sympathetic (yes, it probably creates a hostile work environment for your coworker to, on personal time, post a YouTube video bashing Jews, and so perhaps a company should consider letting them go) but the ramifications as they play out are very definitely complicated if you genuinely value diversity and freedom of speech. 

Answer:

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Tolerating bigots doesn’t just create a hostile work environment; it creates a hostile customer environment also.

When assessing workplace behavior, however, it’s important to separate normal human behavior from bigotry. We are psychologically predisposed to trust people who look like ourselves. That’s because we are tribal animals and our dominant sense is vision. (Discredited Freudianism and Darwinism strikes again! Why do people hold onto discredited theories? Because even something discredited is better for them than the Biblical worldview that they hate!)

This is why the core of successful diversity management is breaking down those walls with training, mentoring and communications. Education, however, must be backed up by accountability because good intentions or serendipity will not overcome tribalism. (This fellow supports anti – Christ brainwashing techniques, as well as using fear and economic pressure techniques.)

Treating people equitably by race/culture, gender, orientation, disability, age, religion, etc., is a value, just like adhering to accounting principles or the law. (Mistreating homosexuals is a sin according to the Bible, a failure to love your neighbor as you do yourself. But this person is not talking about mistreating homosexuals, but rather feeling that homosexuality is a sin!)

It is up to the leadership of the company to establish the values of the firm. (And they will be getting advice from guys like you precisely because they want to avoid expensive and embarrassing lawsuits.) To be clear: Not only does the employer “get to decide” (what behavior is acceptable), it is corporate leadership’s absolute responsibility to decide. This is essential; a lack of values (and/or communicated values) destroys shareholder value.

Poor values lead to poor ethical practices. The subprime fiasco we’re going through now is a direct result of sloppy ethics. At the heart of this crisis are hundreds of thousands of financially illiterate or less-literate people who were victims of predatory and unscrupulous mortgage brokers. A lack of regulation–and most importantly, a market for the resulting unethical mortgage paper–created this mess. It is important to note that Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately sold unethically inappropriate mortgages, and this was widely reported (by us and others) as it happened. (Note the ever popular linking homosexuality to being black lie.)

On the other hand, the best example of clearly stated values and behavior guidelines is Johnson & Johnson’s credo. It easily fits on one page of paper and can be used as a concise decision-making matrix. To understand how this works in action, read about how they handled the 1982 Tylenol incident, (which is easily the best example of corporate crisis handling that I know of).

Unfortunately, people often get unfocused when it comes to values in how we treat other people. This shouldn’t be the case. If a company’s leadership decides that diversity management is instrumental for their company, they must be as efficient in rooting out people who won’t adhere to this policy as they would be about dismissing people who don’t care to follow proper accounting procedure or the law. (And after companies start rooting out and firing Christians, the government will start rooting out and jailing them. It is all about having good values. Ah, a victory of a civil rights movement led by communists, Marxists, atheists, subversives, and false preachers.)

To use your example, in my opinion, a person who posts a hate video on YouTube should be fired on the spot. (So were this fellow ever to find MY Youtube account … and of course stuff like this will intimidate Christians from sharing the true gospel on the Internet or anything else. But hey, persecution always separates the true Christians from the false ones, the offenders from the pretenders. But of course, the person who puts an “I hate white people” or “I hate Christians” tape on Youtube would never be fired, and this guy would defend it!) Because we have constitutional freedom of speech, they cannot be arrested. (Not yet anyway. But you are working on that right now! Your own diversity program is based on what has become standard on most university campuses since the 1980s, the notion that “offensive speech” is not constitutionally protected; it is the equivalent of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. And yes, Opus Dei Clarence Thomas led the Supreme Court into endorsing this notion by making cross – burning a federal crime. Of course, Thomas would LOVE to declare anyone who speaks against his Roman Catholic Church a federal criminal. I wonder if Thomas knows – or cares – that the people who put him on the bench to make that decision knowing that folks would accept from a conservative black man what they would never accept from a liberal black man or a white person of any race will be used in a much broader fashion than he desires? Incidentally, Clarence Thomas ALWAYS rules against free speech!) However, a person who obliviously expresses a stereotype (i.e. “Gay people are disproportionately wealthy”) is demonstrating that they need training. (Never mind the statistics that do in fact show that homosexuals are disproportionately wealthy and well educated.) Since we all come to the table with misconceptions, the company is obligated to train employees if they want to achieve a work environment where good people treat each other (and customers) with a sense of equity. (Will your training program go after people who believe that anyone who rejects evolution should be locked up, a position by Charles Dawkins? Or that Christianity is dangerous and should be outlawed? Of course not.)

Don’t worry about the haters who are fired; they’ll find someplace to work. (Not if everyone reads and applies your column!) Most companies have no effective diversity management and don’t recognize the damage that can be done by a cadre of bigots.

The DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity® list is a list of companies that have superior clarity on this particular value (treating human beings with equity). I think it’s important to understand that those companies will be better employers and suppliers. Clarity on values is a cornerstone of sustainable business.

More Ask the White Guy >>

This is just more evidence that religious right Christians that have been duped into putting their trust in democracy and capitalism are fattening frogs for the anti – Christ snake. It is true that while this nonsense was hatched on our liberal universities, corporations that the religious right has been telling Christians is their rock and their strength and their refuge in a time of trouble are adopting it. Why? Not because “it is good for business” – although they would do so if it was! – but because corporations are of the world and reflect the same fallen mind state as universities, liberal political groups, and anything else. This whole flag waving capitalism thumping religious right agenda is all about fooling and duping Christians into sanctifying the secular, and taking the worldly for being holy. When big business, the military, the state, and even many churches start training their eyes on Christians, it will be the religious right (and the religious left) that helped make it popular.

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Oil Prices Being Used As Excuse To Impose Global Economic Regulation

Posted by Job on June 21, 2008

Saudi summit aims at oil prices

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Saudi Arabia this weekend will convene a special summit on oil prices that could lead to cheaper crude on the world market. But a Saudi decision to produce more crude likely won’t come without a demand: The Kingdom is expected to press the U.S. government to impose greater controls on oil trading and take steps to strengthen the dollar.

The world’s largest oil producer, stepping out of its usual role as de facto leader of OPEC, will host representatives of big oil producing nations, consumer countries and companies. The Saudis are widely believed to be concerned that escalating oil prices – crude hovered around $134 a barrel Thursday, nearly double what it cost a year ago – will cause a permanent drop in demand as consumers get more efficient or, worse, the global economy slows.

One sign of the Saudi anxiety: The country’s oil production decisions, usually left to its oil minister, appear to have been put back in the hands the Royal Family, according to Antoine Halff, deputy head of research at brokerage firm Newedge.

Fuzzy numbers

As a group, OPEC has been reluctant to raise production. Several states, enjoying the record prices, maintain there is no shortage of crude. It’s a line the Saudis also touted – until recently. Saudi Arabia now says it will pump more. The Kingdom, during a recent visit by President Bush, pledged to increase production by 300,000. Last week, they said they would boost it by another 200,000 barrels. Those numbers are not set in stone, and Sunday’s meeting may produce more details on the planned increases.

The Saudis will also seek to convince refineries and others to keep buying. Recently, refiners worldwide have cut back in light of record prices. But that has only led to a drop in crude inventories – further pushing up the price of oil. (Almost as if it was PLANNED.) To inject more oil into the market, Halff said the Saudis may use the meeting to arrange for special deals with refiners and others that could bring crude to market at below-market prices. The exact nature of the deals, he noted, will probably never be disclosed. At the very least, traders will be watching the Sunday meeting to see if those announced production increases fall closer to the 500,000 or 800,000 barrel a day mark.

Sunday showdown

The meeting holds high stakes for both Saudi Arabia and the United States. If prices don’t respond, the country’s credibility will suffer, and with it any notion that someone has control over these record oil prices. “Riyadh is seen as running out of options to regain control of the market,” said Halff. “Failure to do so, it is assumed, could cause prices to leap even higher.”

The Saudis will also expect something from consumer nations in return. The Kingdom has long held that oil markets are well supplied, and that speculative investing is the real culprit behind high prices. (What happened to the booming economies in China and India? By the way … most electricity in China is generated by coal.) To that end, the Saudis will likely seek more oversight of oil markets, and perhaps even limits on the amount of contracts speculators can hold. (This will lead to increased government regulation of mutual funds, major banks, stock and commodities trading, etc. and furthermore it will have to be regulation by unelected international nongovernmental bodies accountable to no one, instead of by the leaders of sovereign states or even of corporations. I can imagine some United Nations “oil trading oversight board” or similar. More on that later.

That’s something consuming counties may give them. Several proposals along those lines have bipartisan support in Congress. (More evidence still that both parties are working for the anti-Christ.) More difficult to deliver, and probably more important to the Saudis, is a stronger dollar. (No it isn’t. Going back to the gold standard would fix all of these problems, and also force our nation to go back to sound economic – and foreign/military – policy because we would no longer have the illusion of unlimited financial resources, pretending that, for instance, grotesque sums of money like 100 trillion dollars have any basis for existing in reality. Of course, that is precisely why it will never happen.)

Like the currencies of many countries in the Middle East, the Saudi riyal is pegged to the U.S. dollar – it rises and falls with the greenback. (Which makes me think that these guys are in on it too. Which basically is why no major political group, either in America or outside of it, has ever taken a line against the Saudi royal family despite their being extremely wealthy, powerful, corrupt, and a major exporter of terror. As a matter of fact, the only two that I can think of that has ever opposed the Saudis were Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden. Not only is the former dead, but he is also dead on account of what the latter did. It begs the question: what does the Saudi royal family have to gain from a global anti – Christ economic system? By the way, as the current version of events go, the reason for the FIRST Gulf War was that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in order to institute a puppet regime. Why? To get more votes on OPEC. Saddam wanted to reduce production to increase prices, Saudi Arabia wanted to keep production high and prices low – the position of the George H. W. Bush family which has extensive financial and political ties and interests with the Saudi regime. And why did Saddam want the price of oil to go up? Because the Iran – Iraq War left his regime bankrupt, and he feared domestic political instability because of it. And who put Saddam in power to wage war against Iran, and supplied him with arms and money only to cut off the aid when the Berlin wall fell and Iran’s backer the Soviet Union fell apart? The United States.)

But while lower interest rates – and hence a lower dollar – may be what the U.S. economy needs to snap out of its slump, they have been disastrous for the red-hot Saudi economy. Inflation in Saudi Arabia has doubled in the last year and is projected to surge even higher. (This is the first article of the many that I have read in years on the weak dollar that claims that the weak dollar was in any way a good thing for the United States economy.) “I think [Saudi Arabia] wants something from the West, particularly the U.S. … a stronger monetary policy,” Nauman Barakat, an energy trader at Macquarie Futures, wrote in a research note. (No, what America is getting from the Saudis is political and economic cover to consent for international economic regulation.)

That will be hard to get. The Federal Reserve is unlikely to raise interest rates anytime soon. And any other move by the U.S. government is likely to have little effect on the free-trading dollar. More info (This is the “more information later” section. What if the Saudis and other oil producing countries state that we need international economic regulation to guarantee stability in the currency markets … that there is never a “weak dollar” or “strong euro” because of the effect that it would have on OPEC’s oil output? Pretty soon, they would also link this monetary exchange oversight to debt relief for third world countries and the economic reform in these countries required to lift them out of poverty and attract foreign investment from – of course – globalist corporations. And since the motivating force is to control oil prices, how long would the idea develop that in order to really have an effect on oil prices, the world needs to agree to cut down on oil consumption? And that easily ties into – you guessed it – global warming regulation!

Posted in Christianity | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT TACTICS MERELY GOVERNMENT TRAINING FOR GREAT TRIBULATION TACTICS TO BE USED AGAINST CHRISTIANS?

Posted by Job on May 30, 2008

I want to make two things clear. 

1. I oppose illegal immigration. Why? Because it is illegal. Now if it weren’t illegal, I would still be no great fan of it, but I would not pay much attention to it because of more pressing matters i.e. abortion genocide and false Christian preachers, both of which by the way are perfectly legal. As it is, government and big business colluding to aid and abet wide scale criminality for their mutual benefit but to the detriment of citizens, workers, and consumers illustrates that the notion of “rule of law” does not exist in this country. Instead, this nation is being ruled by bandits, thugs, and criminals in three piece suits from Wall Street to Capitol Hill to the White House. 

2. After leaving behind the “Left Behind” Cyrus Scofield Roman Catholic Jesuit rapture cult, I was forced to acknowledge that the doctrine of the imminent return of Jesus Christ must be interpreted in an eschatological sense rather than a temporal one – and such would have to be the case or else the last few verses of Revelation would have been demonstrated to be false like 1900 years ago – and as a result the great tribulation could just as easily come 500 years from now as tomorrow. I have to tell you … knowing to interpret Revelation in an eschatological – while still fully literal! – sense would have saved me a lot of hours watching John Hagee during his “Jerusalem Countdown” period a few years back, and it would have also saved a lot of Christians from being taken in by things like “recently discovered Bible codes prove that Jesus Christ will return in the year 2000!” hysteria. Look, Christians have to be honest enough to acknowledge that according to the very same method of Bible interpretation methods used by the “Left Behind” crowd, the rapture should have occurred at or around 70 AD. 

With those two lengthy qualifying statements out of the way, the article Operation Return to Sender on the techniques used to find and deport illegal immigrants by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ought to really get Christians to thinking. First, you have ICE inflicting “detailing stomach-turning—and sometimes deadly—mistreatment in immigrant detention centers.” Second, “Operation Return to Sender” targets immigrants that the courts have already told to leave the country. Problem ? The government freely acknowledges “about half of the information in ICE’s “Deportable Alien Control System”—a database of immigrants to be deported—is incorrect or incomplete.” (It makes me wonder if Jeb Bush’s faulty list of people ineligible to vote because of felony convictions – a list compiled by a corporation – during the election 2000 recount fiasco was nothing but a trial run). 

Still more. “… enforcement teams carry out large-scale sweeps, raiding homes in neighborhoods with a lot of immigrants just after sunrise. Without an accurate list of which homes actually harbor undocumented immigrants, agents often rely on race to figure out who’s here legally and who isn’t. For example, in Fair Haven, Conn., several residents reported that during a raid last summer, ICE officers went door to door asking how many people were inside each house—and what race they were. In an ICE operation in Willmar, Minn., Latino residents were handcuffed and interrogated while white residents, some even in the same home, went unquestioned.” NEOCONSERVATIVES who support racial profiling have no problem with this? Fine. But in great tribulation year 5 when they will be going house to house looking for Christians instead of Mexicans, let us see how many of you will still be neoconservative. (Yes, my going from Bush Republican to basically libertarian did coincide with my leaving the rapture cult.) I should point out that going house to house looking for all the Christians to arrest has already happened to Christians in various nations at various times throughout history. After all, how do you think that governments in China, North Korea, and in various Muslim nations locate and break up these cells of illegal Christian house churches? Go to http://persecution.org or http://persecution.com to see what I am talking about. But so long as it is not happening IN THIS COUNTRY RIGHT NOW makes this tactic OK, right? 

It gets better. “By ICE’s own admission, the bureau has mistakenly detained, arrested, and even deported not only legal immigrants but also U.S. citizens. Those caught up in recent home raids include Adriana Aguilar, a citizen living in East Hampton, N.Y., who was sound asleep with her 4-year-old son when ICE officers stormed into her bedroom, pulled the covers off the bed, and shined flashlights into her face before interrogating her. In San Rafael, Calif., ICE detained 6-year-old Kebin Reyes, a citizen from birth, holding him in a locked office for 12 hours after immigration agents, pretending to be police, stormed into the apartment he shared with his father and forcibly removed him from his home.” I can see the government deciding that it is best to take children from Christian parents in operations like this, can’t you? First, consider the Mormon raid in Texas, which I threw up a post endorsing, now ruled illegal. Second, consider that being a “fundamentalist” Christian is now a factor in divorce proceedings used to determine who gets primary or sole custody of children. 

This is the best part. “The government’s guidelines for immigration enforcement prohibit these kinds of abuses. Why aren’t they being enforced? Theories abound. ICE attorneys have suggested that because most of the rules governing officer conduct were instituted before the Department of Homeland Security took over immigration enforcement, they don’t apply to ICE at all. Another explanation is that in the wake of Sept. 11, stepped-up immigration enforcement may have taken priority over careful procedures.” So, once Christians are declared to be clear and present dangers due to our divisive, dangerous, and extremist rhetoric on the Bible being infallible and the final authority and Jesus Christ being the only way to heaven (please note that evangelical favorite George W. Bush has openly rejected both, while Billy Graham openly denied the first decades ago by embracing Roman Catholicism and the original edition of “The Living Bible” that contained purposeful blatant alterations, and later denied the second as well) and the eternal lake of fire awaits all who reject either, the tactics that are now being used against Muslims and illegal immigrants will be used against Christians. “Waterboarding” and “Rendition” to Christians? Why not?

The big payoff! “Twenty-five years ago, in the case of INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, the Supreme Court declined to extend the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees to immigration proceedings. But Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recognized that if in the future there were “good reason to believe” that constitutional violations in immigration enforcement were “widespread,” the way judges handled these cases would have to change.” Vatican stooge (and illegal immigration supporter) Ronald Reagan put Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court, which is all you need to know. And how many of Reagan’s policies contributed to the problems that we have in the Middle East right now? Or didn’t you know that the Reagan administration considered Saddam Hussein an ally, providing his regime with training, weapons, and money? It certainly looks like with respect to the war on terror and illegal immigration, the government created these problems only to later claim to need draconian measures to solve them. 

Speaking of the aforementioned Florida 2000, the combination of illegal immigration, the war on terror,  the need to combat voter fraud, the need to track sex offenders, and the need to battle identity theft will result in calls for a system of electronic identification and monitoring in the near future. Will that mean that the great tribulation is upon us? No. The scenarios described in Revelation do not only apply to America, but to the entire world. Some have limited it somewhat by stating that such things as being unable to buy or sell will only apply to the portion of the world that matters in Bible prophecy and the Bible in general. Now I should point out that many other nations of the world are fully onto this agenda. The National Review claims that France has enacted stronger measures in the war on terror that America has … that they will deport a Muslim preacher for delivering a sermon that offends the government in a heartbeat. (And knowing France’s feelings towards Biblical Christians, Christians are supposed to support this WHY?) Many in Europe are also joining the anti – immigrant chorus as well. While I am very sympathetic to these people’s concerns, it bears asking why the governments that comprised the EU decided to A) promote policies that they KNEW would result in extremely low birthrates among the native population while B) having open immigration policies in the first place other than to create chaos that people would support repressive government policies to control. Please recognize that the only reason why the VERY NATIONALISTIC Europeans consented to economic integration – and the political integration that goes with it – was because the member nations had spent decades purposefully wrecking their economies. And of course, once the EU was formed, pretty much the same group of folks that had spent the last few decades wrecking economies all of a sudden returned to sound economic policy resulting in fast economic growth, making Frenchmen who wold have been aghast at being linked with Italians, Spaniards, Germans, and – gasp! – EASTERN EUROPEANS think that giving up their sovereignty, traditions, and cultures is a grand idea. How long before universal healthcare, jobs programs, endless wars, and global warming economic regulations, and $5 a gallon gas (thanks ANWR!) makes our own economy so bad that a North American Union with Mexico and Canada starts looking like a great idea? By the way … Mexico has a ton of oil that its government won’t allow anyone access to …

Actually, that last scenario is a contradiction in my endtimes scenario: if we adopt the North American Union and open the Mexican and Canadian borders, that would lessen the rationale for national ID cards by negating the illegal immigration issue. Then again, if the North American Union is ever formed, the government will have so much power that it will be able to autocratically mandate such IDs – and share the information from it with the EU and any similar body of African, Asian, and Latin American nations – and there won’t be anything that anyone will be able to do about it. 

Posted in Jesus Christ | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

US Military Using Mark Of The Beast Technology In Iraq

Posted by Job on February 22, 2008

According to this radical Christian site, the war in Iraq was just a test run. Courtesy of SoldierServant.

cuttingedge.org/news/n1987.cfm

Posted in anti - Christ, beast, Christianity, endtimes, eschatology, Iraq, prophecy | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

FBI Prepares Massive Biometrics Database

Posted by Job on December 23, 2007

For this to have any implications in the various endtimes “mark of the beast” scenarios, it would have to be global. But this does have implications for privacy rights and the increasing power of the state over the individual using technology, something that Christians should be concerned about, keep a track of, and oppose. See link below

washingtonpost.com link

Posted in anti - Christ, beast, Christianity, endtimes, eschatology, government, politics, prophecy | Tagged: , , , , | 15 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: