Nations will suffer consequences on earth, and people will suffer them, or be pardoned, after this life. I know what you are saying. We do commit sin as a nation, but it is generally the sins of our leaders who lead our nation into bad actions, and the sin of the people is generally the sin of omission for not stopping it.
It is clear that God allows bad rulers to reign, as a corrective measure, but it is a lack of discernment, often times, that allows bad rulers to come from a well meaning public. I believe that this is largely the case in the US today. Yet, over time, the public can be turned toward evil by the actions of the leaders, as well. It can be a perpetual cycle of decline that leads to destruction. I believe that this is what the end times are all about.
It can be stressed too much. By that, I mean that the ability to focus on the real solution is diminished when we spend our time railing about the current leader. I only look at Obama, and what he is doing, for the purpose of knowing what part of the process we are in. Obama is not the beginning and the end, but only in power at a certain stage. If a republican won instead of Obama, we would basically be in the same situation. The 08 crash would have happened, and therefor the bailouts would have taken place. The 08 situation was set up over many years. The wars would be going exactly the same, but we might be hearing slightly different rhetoric. Our financial situation, including the debt would not be much, if any, better. We might not have socialized medicine to the extent that we do now, but that is why Obama was put in. The $1B campaign that Obama ran was not funded by small donations from the people. It was funded by the banks, and the corporations that were ultimately going to drive policy. A republican president would have acquired the white house in the same manner. Presidential candidates don't run to appeal to these entities, they have deals made before they get there. These entities simply determine who the two electoral dictator parties are going put up, and who is the most likely to win. They decide who can politically push their agendas, and then support them.
The speaker of the house is the same kind of situation. They don't make it there, unless they are going to go along. This is why Boehner is such a disappointment. It happens to be why Gingrich didn't last longer than he did, and it is why Polosi is hated as much as she is.
A bad economy due to a high national debt level being our biggest financial concern, is like saying that the ground under an attacking bear is the biggest problem because it gives him good footing to chase you.
I don't fear nuclear war. I agree with Israel's leaders concerning the issue.
Iran has been under the thumb of UN and US sanctions for quite a while, and our presidents have sought a path to war with them since Bush Sr. was in office. This link has some really interesting ideas on the history between Iran, Iraq, and the US. I tend to agree with it. It is based on a scientific study of actual events, and not the political rhetoric.
Relations between Israel and Iran could be improved if the US and UN would get out of the way. Israel, as stated in the link above, has other options, but we use our financial and political influence to keep it from happening.
Iran has offered full disclosure and control of their nuclear programs, but the US and the UN refused it, and ramped up the rhetoric. This clearly signifies their disinterest in alternatives to war.
Iran does not have the ability, nor the desire to do the things that their leaders spout off. I don't believe that they want to be annihilated, either. We have something like forty bases surrounding them.
There is an information war going on. The media, and our government, are fully engaged in deceptive practices. You can't trust anyone, but the media and government don't have a monopoly on information anymore. Alternatives are beating out the old school, because the old school is exposed for their lies and people turn away.
Our greatest national security issue is our financial situation.
Thank you for the links,l.
I'm posting this link that you and others on RS may find interesting.
Radical Islam plans to take over the world-videos
Although the majority of Muslims are not what would be described as radical, they fail to criticize the radicals and allow the radicals to continue to terrorize the world. While this is the situation, they are virtually supporting their radical "brethren" and in reality are not a whole lot better than the radicals.
The radicals seriously plan and expect to take over the western world, especially the U.S. and not just by terrorism. The narrator estimates that the radicals are 5-10% of the Muslim population. That's a large number - many millions.
China- Russia -Iran allience
Iran, Israel, USA, Bible Prophecies in Our Face!
World War III Israel Russia and Iran. Bible Prophecy Last Days
World War III: Coming Attack on Iran Pt.1
Ezekiel 38-The Gog Magog war- who is Magog and her allies?-bible prophecy
Israel's Prophetic War - Ezekiel 38 & 39
I agree with the majority of what these links were talking about. I don't deny the desires of the Muslims, and knew that their radicals were the few among them. I have seen the evidence that the western world has actually radicalized them. Most of these terror organizations were creations of the US and others. They were funded, by us. Such is the case with Bin Laden and the Taliban, and also Al Qaeda.
Hillary gives the false impression that we had pulled out of supplying the radicals after Russia fell, but she is correct about our support in creating them.
After we assisted the radicals in taking over Libya, it should have been quite clear that we have a history of stirring up the hornets nest in the middle east. It is my contention that most of this did not have to happen, and therefor should be abandoned and corrected. It is our continued presence and interference that gives support to the radicals.
This guy seems to have a really good grasp of the concepts behind the "old terrorism" vs "new terrorism", as he puts it. He rationally links international intervention issues in the middle east to the rise of global terrorism.
I simply believe that since we were instrumental in creating the situation, that we should attempt to reverse the policies of the past and present, and seek a different policy in the future. If for no other reason than to try something different, but also as a moral responsibility. If terrorism grows because of our policies, then we need to revisit them. Logic causes me to conclude that I would do what they are doing, if I were in their shoes, therefor a different approach should be considered.
As for the biblical references that you provided, I concur with them. I believe that the links you provided are pretty much spot on. So, we know what will ultimately happen, and we know that our time is probably limited to 30 to 40 years at most. Personally, I see two to five years being the maximum life of our currency.
I believe that the great prostitute of revelations is the global financial system. This world system, which is not yet complete, will fall. Before that happens, I personally believe that the US will fall, leading us into this global system. I don't believe that this system will last long before the tribulation begins. They have already set up the IMF as the new world bank, and to be the controller of the new world reserve currency. The world is beginning to pull out of the dollar right now. This will contribute greatly to its collapse.
I do not believe that our foreign policy will change dramatically, but I have to advocate for this change in the mean time. I am not concerned about Islam taking over our country, or the world. They play a part, but won't have the real power. That will be reserved for the global system, which cares nothing for Islam except what they can get them to do so that we will end up desperate enough to join the global system. I say, do not fear Islam, fear the globalists. Ultimately, there is really nothing to fear except for the pain we will go through in the process, or until Christ returns.
That is a good letter. I hope that he can put a dent in the poor judgement that the church has sold themselves out to. Churches need to drop their tax exempt status and do what they are supposed to do to speak out against specific parties, and politicians. It is embarrassing to see the Church cowering to government control.
Thanks for the letter.
I was sent this email and thought you and others might appreciate it.
By Pastor Roger Anghis
February 12, 2010
Part 1- The Begining
The religious roots of our nation go very deep. Over the last 50-75 years we have lost a tremendous amount of truth of how religion governed not only the daily lives of our founding Fathers, but how it was always deeply involved in the politics of this nation.
In Hitler’s Mein Kompf he states that the bigger the lie and the more often that it is told the easier it is to get the masses to believe it. In the 30’s and 40’s he did just that and the result was a world war that cost the lives of over 60 million people.
In 1947 our Supreme Court ruled that the 1st Amendment had erected a wall of separation between the church and state and it had to remain impregnable. Even though there was no evidence of this in any court ruling for over 170 years, not even in the first Supreme Court was the church/state position challenged, yet somehow, the Supreme Court of 1947 decided that our Founding Fathers were uniformed as to the meaning of the 1st Amendment. The 1947 Supreme Court for the first time used ONLY the phrase “separation of church and state” instead of the whole context of that sentence which is not found in any of our founding documents, but in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802.
A letter was written to then President Jefferson because they had a concern that the US might try to establish a state church as had been done in England. The state ran the church and taxed the people to support the church. When you read the entire letter that Jefferson wrote you will find that he does use the statement ‘separation of church and state’ but it is easily understood that what he is talking about is keeping the government out of the affairs of the church, not keeping the church completely out of the government. The Supreme Court decision of 1947 by liberal judges put on the Supreme Court by FDR, completely redefined the 1st Amendment. In that day 97% of the people of this nation declared and allegiance to God and in a nation where the majority rules, the 3% of our nation that did not believe in God ruled over the 97%.
In the early 1950’s one of the Supreme Court justices warned that we had better STOP using the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ in the context that it was being used or people would begin believing that it was part of our Constitution. Most of the people I talk to today about the so-called ‘separation of church and state’ do believe that it is part of our Constitution. The bigger the lie and the more you tell it makes it easier for the masses to believe it.
Preachers today don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena.
Because the church does not address this part of American life we have politicians that have won’t protect our borders, we have politicians that believe that it is a woman’s right to destroy her unborn child, we have politicians that refuse to support our troops fighting the war on terror. The Bible teaches us that however the church goes, the nation goes. Preachers today don’t have a problem with how the government has taken our right to be involved in the politics of this nation away from us. Without the churches influence, our politicians have begun to take this nation down a path of destruction. And because pastors are afraid of losing their 501 (c) 3 rating, they won’t stand up for their rights.
I have tried to help pastors educate their people as to what they should be doing as far as their involvement even with political issues, and the typical response is, "We don’t do anything political."
I invited 200 pastors to a meeting concerning this and they stayed away by the thousands. I had one pastor show up! Some pastors won’t even take a side on abortions and same-sex marriages for fear of losing members or their coveted 501 (c) 3. They claim that it is a political issue. It has become a political issue but more importantly it is a moral issue that the church should be addressing. Half of the people sitting in the pews are living together without the benefit of marriage, but the church won’t preach against it for fear of offending someone. One pastor I talked to felt comfortable with the present lack of involvement of the church in the political arena and I told him that a while back I was too, then one day the Holy Spirit said to me, ‘What if I’m not?’ That is the question that pastors must ask themselves. Is God happy that the church is absent from the political arena?
There was a point in time in this nation when you couldn’t get elected UNLESS you confessed Jesus as Lord, and had a record of attending church regularly! Religion was very important during the days of our Founding Fathers. One man was fined $500 for using the Name of the Lord in vain. That was over a year’s wages. Today you hear people inside the church, even the sons of some pastors using language that reminds you of a drunken sailor. Just a short while ago a man in a public meeting cursed and was arrested and jailed. When he got before a judge, the judge told the police that they had violated his right of free speech.
Today’s churches preach a lukewarm message not wanting to offend anyone. Any time you teach the truth, somebody is going to be offended. Lukewarm messages have never built a strong church. Revelation 3:16 “'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.”
Many of the preachers that I talk to don’t believe that the church is supposed to be involved in the political arena, but in the Bible God ALWAYS had a man or woman of God close to the king, ALWAYS! Saul, Israel’s first king had Samuel the prophet. Every king, whether they were godly or not, had a man of God to influence them. Even our presidents have had godly men to influence them. One man, Billy Graham has influenced, prayed with and for every president since Harry Truman. Eleven presidents were counseled and prayed with by him. Every president we have had has had a man of God to advise him and pray for him. Now, our presidents have not always taken the advice of these godly men just as the kings in the Old Testament didn’t always take heed to the advice of the prophets.
We have seen some presidents ignore the godly principles of our Founding Fathers and take our nation down a path that leads away from the things of God. I believe that the worst president we have ever had was Woodrow Wilson. He was a racist and a progressive which beliefs are equal to a Marxist. Then we had FDR. He set this nation on the road to socialism and there are many today in that same party that are hell bent to get us there. They are supporting the forcing of religious organizations to hire homosexuals. They passed hate crimes legislation that would make preaching the gospel concerning the Biblical view of homosexuality against the law. They have supported over the years, the removal of religion from the public view, the Ten Commandment displays, pictures of Jesus and the removal of prayer from government meetings.
The church has to stand up for its rights or we will lose all of our rights. Many pastors say that we have to abide by the laws, but when the laws of man violate the laws of God ministers are mandated to obey God! All Christians are mandated to obey God, but pastors especially. When John and Peter we brought before the Sanhedrin and told to no longer speak in the Name of Jesus, Peter refused to follow that order: Acts 4:18 “And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
(19) But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
(20) For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”
Up until 1954 the church could talk about political candidates and whether they were godly or ungodly. We could talk about political parties and whether they stood for godly things or ungodly things. In the early fifties Lyndon Johnson won election to the senate by a total of 87 votes. He had a lot of political connections and was able to stop every attempt at a recount.
One man who counted votes admitted on his deathbed that they rigged the count and counted several hundred false votes for Johnson. This information was leaked to a 501 (c) 3 that began to inform the public about the rigged election. When this information was released by non-profits Johnson had an addendum attached to an IRS bill that barred any 501 (c) 3 from supporting or opposing a political candidate or a political party. Johnson was able to silence his opposition. The church had been silenced.
© 2010 Roger Anghis - All Rights Reserved
Pastor Roger Anghis is the Founder of RestoreFeeSpeech.org, an organization designed to draw attention to the need of returning free speech rights to churches that was restricted in 1954.
President of The Damascus Project, TheDamascusProject.org, which has a stated purpose of teaching pastors and lay people the need of the churches involvement in the political arena and to teach the historical role of Christianity in the politics of the United States. Married-37 years, 3 children, three grandchildren.
The Devil, His Fallen Angels/Demons, His False Christs, And His False Prophets; Will Misstate, Twist, And Misuse The Holy Word Of God; And Outright Lie To YOU, In Order To Deceive YOU, And Damn YOU To Hell!
Sadly, we are going to need a revolution. The corruption is too deep. Elections by the people have become a joke. We need to force public vote counts, build an anti-establishment political revolution, and take it as far as we have to take it to change out our government. It has to happen quickly. If the establishment is in power when the currency crashes, we will lose our freedoms, and we will be held to the debt that the establishment signed on to. The money that we borrowed was never real. It was created from nothing. We need to simply write it off, and print our own currency. We need to cut the federal government by about 80%, and primarily fund defense of our country here at home while we sort it out. We need to legalize competing currencies and free markets. We need to free up our resources and start competing with the world. We need the people of this country to buck up and really get to work helping out the elderly and the young. We need a private localized education system. We need to make illegal any corporate influence on our government institutions, and impose the penalty of death for treason, such as putting us under international law.
I could go on, but that is the big stuff.
Obama is definitely a big problem, but he was put in office to do the things that he has done. Just as Bush was put there to do the things that he did.
Do you still believe that these guys come up with all of this stuff on their own? Do they take office and write legislation that is thousands of pages long, extremely complex, to the point that it takes years to find out what is in them, and they do it a just a few months? I don't think so. Health care and all the rest have been in the works for years.
The easy ones to see the pattern for are the wars. They push something, then back off for political reasons. They wait until they get the right environment, then push it again. If that doesn't work, they shove it down our throats, or just go to war without proper approval. Republicans can do certain things, and democrats can do certain things. If they want health care passed, they put in a democrat. If they want to build the police state or start wars, they put in a republican. Neither party ever reverses the prior party's tyranny. In fact, they cover for each other.
The same goes for the financial system. Democrats are just expected to spend and tax, but the republicans can only do it, and get away with it, if there is a national security issue. Neither party ever goes after the easy money, because they both want it.
As long as you see Obama as the "real" problem, you will ignore the systematic corruption, because you will give the republicans a waiver when they use the same system to their advantage and to the advantage of their corporate buddies and global power structure.
A "true patriot" is apparently a subjective term. I see a true patriot as someone who is willing to sacrifice everything for the sovereignty of his country. Our sovereignty is being lost through the very financial and governing institutions that Paul Ryan is refusing to focus on. Instead, he gives false hope in the system, and its ability to be reformed as it is structured.
When Paul Ryan comes out as their "financial expert", and ignores the core issue, it can be viewed as covering for the system. That is, the system that is taking down our currency, and our freedoms. If he is aware of the core issues, which are also constitutional ones, but fails to recognize and educate on them, then what is his game? I see it as "to keep the system in tact, while getting his party back into power".
How is that going to solve anything? That just keeps the establishment two party system running the same game that they have for a long time.
I appreciate your zeal. I guess that I just have a different perspective. I don't ignore the capability of the supposed conservatives any longer. They have fooled this guy for the last time.
Obama believes in collective sin and collective salvation. If we want to get out of this mess, we have to think and act as individuals, even as we unite as Americans.
AP. gosh, I should have explained my statement as I don't believe in obama's progressive black theology. I meant that we as individuals and as a nation must return to G-d.
Collective Salvation and Collective Sin are nonsensical as any Christian knows that G-d will only judge us on our individual choices and actions.
We need new "conservative" blood in Washington. Sweep all of them out and bring in the "conservative new blood."
He was talking about letting a bank issue currency.
Far, far different concept than what most people mean when they say "bankster."
In fact, from every usage I've seen on the web, an easy way to tell if someone knows a thing about banking, money transfer, monetary value, or wealth management, is whether they ever use the term "bankster." If they use it liberally, then they usually know almost nothing about the subject.
That's exactly what I mean by "banksters". The other banks, such as Goldman Sachs, are the children of the Fed. Therefor, the term applies to them as well.
I don't think that I am. The moral hazard comes from both sides of the proverbial coin. The government couldn't have done what they have without a "private central bank", and the central bank is more than happy to provide their needs and wants. We can't get rid of government, and we don't have time to change it so that it won't spend the easy money. So the best path is to rail against the central bank and seek to destroy it. We need to attempt to solve this problem before the Fed Res note fails, and we remain tied to it forever. When it fails, it will be replaced by a new world reserve controlled by a global central bank that we will be enslaved to by means of our debt. As we know, the world reserve currency is what world trade is done in, and it will require more Fed notes than we will ever be able to print to pay off our debt. The more we print, the more worthless it will become. Now, that is the problem that we should be concerned about. The fact that the money we borrow is make up from nothing, should really tick us off. We will be indebted to people who gave nothing to enslave us. They will own us, and control us with it. That is a loss of sovereignty that we should not be willing to suffer.
Hey, we breed em smart here in Wisconsin. It makes up for the socialists we breed in Madison. Not by much though!
Okay Ryan, you must subscribe to my newsletter or are following my postings!
There are two economic truths I have been posting for the last two years.
1) The US Federal deficit spending for the last 3 years has been appx 10% of US GDP. The US GDP growth rate has been stated to be appx 2%. That gives you an effective GDP tax rate of a negative 8% when you take future decline into account.
2) If you plot the DJIA indexed to gold instead of inflation, you get to see the truth. At the current time, the DJIA would have to be at appx 35,000 to beat gold.
Hmmmm, we are just PEACHY in the economic outlook huh?
Iran has to be hit this year but barry has no intention of causing any harm to them. Go get em Israel
If Obama gets the big campaign funding this year, we will know whether or not he is the one who will do it. The people who run our foreign policy want us to, and he takes orders from them. Ron Paul is actually helping to keep us out of Iran, simply by stirring up the anti-war crowd and taking votes from Obama. Obama needs to stop those votes from leaving. He could win either way with election fraud, but they don't want it to be too obvious. They don't want a full blown revolution on their hands before they are ready to dump the currency and go to a new world reserve. A liberty/anti-war movement could make things really difficult for them. It would be better to ease into serfdom rather than be put down into it.
Don't be surprised if barry wins. It appears that the conservative camp has been struck with confusion and every man sword is against his neighbor.
Sure. That's what it would look like to those who think they can get away with the destruction of this nation.
To rational humans, it looks like a vigorously contested vetting process prior to the Great Republican Landslide of 2012, where the era of Huge Government comes to a sudden, drastic end.
Here's hoping the housing bubble all around the DC area collapses massively. I'd sell now, If I owned a house there.
If "getting real" means buying into the "evil banksters" fantasy, then let's hope he stays just the way he is.
If you are saying that the central bank is not the problem, but he government is, then you are right about half of it.
What do you call a bank that prints money from nothing, lends it to our government, and debases the currency causing inflation and loss of wealth. What do you call a bank that does this, plus operates in secret funding world entities without our knowledge, bails out foreign institutions without our approval, and puts us on the hook for it? What do you call an institution that calls for higher taxes to collect our money to service the debt that they created from nothing? What do you call a bank that keeps interest rates low, while lending interest free money to banks to create easy loans that are used to trade in the derivative markets putting hundreds of thousands of mortgages at risk? What do you call banks that purposely inflate the housing market so that their buddies can get rich, knowing that they will fail and be bailed out, putting the tax payers on the hook? What do you call a bank that purposefully destroys the wealth of a society leading it into a total collapse, while taking that society's real wealth for itself? What do you think of a bank who has a government under its thumb who will prosecute its competitors even when it isn't illegal to sell gold backed notes? What do you call a bank who funds both sides of wars between nations?
Some who believe in the evolutionary theory of "survival of the fittest" would say that they are obviously smarter than the rest, so go for it.
I would say that they are evil, and deserve the derogatory term "bankster".
I call that government interference, plain and simple.
To put your litany of loaded questions all on banks is sheer nonsense. Banks didn't decide how to set rates under Dodd-Frank. Banks didn't call for higher taxes, as you stated. Banks do not print money. Only the Fed does that. The Fed is the creature by and of government, despite it's "private" charter. Same with Fannie May and Freddie Mac. Those are not regular, chartered banks. They are the creatures of and by government, and have nothing to do with a free economy, where a banker can establish and run the business of financial transactions and capital accumulation.
This phony war on "banksters" is just as stupid as Paul's racist nonsense from the newsletter days. Always find a demon, and demonize it. Right out of the totalitarian playbook.
Paul has lost control of half of his own movement. It's bad enough he's flunked national defense. But to have all these anti-capitalist ranters supporting him just shows how much of his constituency is made up of marxists. This is exactly why he will never be the nominee.
I'm well read in libertarian philosophy. The trouble is, the Ron Paul crowd has distorted it beyond it's original precepts. The evidence is in the rhetoric. It took you this long to refocus on the fact that the only point the libertarians originally had regarding banking was against the notion of a central bank. Period. You could have copped to that originally, but it was buried in obfuscation regarding "evil banksters," which is rhetoric designed to make the marxists think you mean the local savings and loan.
We are not anti-capitalists. This should be clear by now. We are not anti-bank either. We are anti-central bank, and that is all that I have talked about. Libertarian financial ideology is based solely on free market capitalism. Plain and simple. Having a central bank is the most ignorant thing that a government can do, and is treason as well, because it hands over our financial sovereignty. It is the antithesis of Americanism, constitutionalism, and moral governance.
Banksters are not inherently evil. They are made that why by the government. It ALWAYS comes down to interference by the government. ALWAYS!
Make that a Plural - LOOTERS - http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Bumper-Sticker-Eugene-OR-Looter.jpg
More importantly, why aren't our legislators stopping the insane looting of our economy by the Obama administration - RIGHT NOW!
Is there any likelihood that Boehner will lose his Leadership position and Ryan or West will gain it? As long as we have the same leadership, we'll have the same squishy, nation-destroying results. Is there no courage in the Elephant Leadership? I think they need to stage a coup.
Remember when we would run into pessimistic people who told us that the GOP and Dems were just two arms of the same animal and we thought they were tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists?
Are all the republicans bound up with duct tape held hostage somewhere in the Capitol building? ....Because I don't hear them making a peep about anything that is going on. In fact they are often complicit.
It is hard to imagine that many self-absorbed egotists in one place, who care not for their country, but what they can suck out of the country. Believe your lyin' eyes.