Here is Part Four of Danny Jeffrey’s “Iran, Obama and Nuclear War.” Danny continues the grand design of the Soros/Obama New World. He touches on how Obama is making the U.S. Military compliant to fire on American citizens, the probable location of where Iran will use stealth to detonate a nuclear weapon, Islamic Terrorism unleashed on American soil and more.
Iran, Obama and Nuclear War Part FOUR
By Danny Jeffrey
November 14, 2013 1:40 AM
This essay is the forth in a series about my belief that Hussein Obama is intentionally leading us into a nuclear crisis. The following are links to three prior articles on the topic:
Iran, Obama, and Nuclear War-Part Three
I have watched Obama, and his fellow progressives for years, and by rejecting the ever abundant internet tripe that ensnares so many, have gleaned an enormous amount of facts and insight into their behavior, and in doing so feel that my efforts have uncovered most of their diabolical plan, about which I have been writing for so long.
I first concluded three years ago that Obama’s policies were going to result in nuclear conflict and at that time related their plan only to the ruin of Israel, already understanding both his and George Soros’ hatred of that small nation. Time and yet more facts coming to light have led me to see a much larger picture, one that is nothing less than absolutely diabolical.
So many refer to Obama as a dictator. They are mistaken. That is his goal, but as of yet it has thankfully not come to fruition. Were he indeed a dictator, we would not be communicating freely on the internet, and the DHS would already be rounding up dissidents. That day is planned, but thus far we still have the First Amendment allowing us to communicate amongst ourselves.
There is no doubt that Hussein does indeed plan on implementing martial law when the time is right and declaring himself to be ‘The One’. That time is not yet here but is most assuredly part of his planned agenda, and I am now convinced that the success of that plan relies on a nuclear crisis. Were that not so, Hussein Obama would not be expending so much effort to guarantee that Iran is successful in their desire to construct a nuclear bomb.
In previous essays I have discussed the need for Obama to destroy our military before engaging the armed population of America, for our … READ THE REST
Some see, few know, many choose to wander aimlessly in a fog, devoid of sunlight. I seek the light of day and leave the others to their chosen realm of ignorance. They are the ones who have brought this great nation down. I write only for the benefit of those who possess the courage required to restore our birthright.
John R. Houk
© October 24, 2013
Something popped into my head while I was reading your essay. Yeah, I know, when the light comes on in the old grey matter it could be dangerous. You believe a revolution is imminent and the attempted take-over will be at the hands of the
Left … err I mean Progressives, correct? Frankly I do not disagree with that prediction.
But here’s the thing. What if a majority of the American electorate awoke from the Matrix slumber imposed by the Left and began voting against Progressive candidates and Establishment Republicans? What if true Conservatives began to have the proverbial upper hand politically at least as in the Reagan years? Would there still be a revolution in America’s immediate future?
Now here’s the thought that popped into my mind. No matter who dominates America’s political power structure a revolution would occur anyway. Why?
The reason is because the political spectrum in the USA is uncompromisingly fractured. There is the Progressive Left. There is the Conservative Right. There is an Independent electorate in the middle that is neither Progressive nor Conservative but just want the best environment to live their lives on whatever non-political path they desire to walk.
Honestly the semblance of balance has been the Center-Left and the Center-Right that have historically bargained in an agreed upon give-and-take legislative fashion. The last time that balance broke down in the USA there was a bloody Civil War with the weaponry of that time.
It is my opinion the Center-Left in America has totally disintegrated in America’s Constitutional power structure. In our current Two-Party system those we call the Establishment Republicans are the Center-Right. The problem with the GOP’s Center-Right is that the business-as-usual mentality has been infected with Center-Left or just down right Progressive thinking. The growing Conservatives of the Republican view (and rightfully so) as a betrayal of the history that brought America to the point of the most powerful yet Freest nation on the planet Earth.
This absence of political balance is what will lead to another Revolutionary War in the USA. I guess one could call a future internecine war in America the Second Civil War, but I tend to think it will be akin to America’s original Revolutionary War. Divisions in political loyalties will splinter urban areas as well as rural areas. The only reason entire States might take a side for or against a duly elected Constitutional government one political spectrum was able to subdue the other side of the political spectrum within a State.
No, the next war conflicting Americans will be whose political vision wins a bloody war with the winners Founding a new Constitution based on the victorious political spectrum.
God have mercy on us all on how such a war will culminate.
Hmm … Another dangerous thought: Perhaps a global war will set aside political spectrum conflict within the USA – at least temporarily. But again Danny isn’t the global conflict part of an International Progressive agenda to squash opposition to a Left Wing New World Order?
Time will tell.
Justin Smith writes about defunding Obamacare even if the debt ceiling is not ultimately raised. He believes the onus of the lack of budget will fall on President Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of the big spending Socialist-minded Dems. Most importantly Justin calls on individual States to utilize Article V of the U.S. Constitution to call a Constitutional Convention with a specified agenda to repeal Obamacare. A specified agenda would deal with the fear of both sides of the political spectrum that a Constitutional Convention is not a run-away convention destroying the spirit of the Founding Fathers’ revolutionary Constitution.
A Patriot’s Answer
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 9/23/2013 11:14 AM
As the October 1, 2013 enrollment period for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) nears and Obama and a host of temporary politicians and Progressives gleefully ruminate over permanent societal changes effected by the PPACA, some Americans are preparing to submit to the ignoble lie called “Obamacare,” even though nothing exists in the entirety of U.S. history, the Constitution and the Commerce Clause that empowers any of the three branches of the federal government to force a person to enter into a legally binding contract against the individual’s will. And, no matter what nonsense Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, the majority of the American people still know Obamacare to be unConstitutional and representative of a gross overreach of power by the Obama administration and the Progressives.
Obama has “found loopholes,” that he and Progressives surely knew existed beforehand, which exempt Congress and their staffers and the Executive and staff from Obamacare. They act as if this is the Obama monarchy and they, Republican and Democrat alike, are his entourage of aristocrats!
Since when do we make laws applicable to only certain segments of society anymore? Since when are government officials above the law? And, why should I or anyone else comply with a law that even exempts the unions and does not apply evenly and equally throughout our society?
Although Obama has warned of an “economic backslide” if the Republicans bring the Obamacare fight to the continuing resolution and fight him over the budget (lack of a budget) and raising the debt ceiling, some Republicans in the Senate, such as Bob Corker (R-TN)are refusing to attempt to defund Obamacare by September 30, because they do not want the blame for any government shutdown that may result from this fight; and now that the House funded the entire government except for Obamacare with a vote of 230 to 189, the Progressives in the Senate probably will not pass the bill, Obama will not sign it and the Progressive Democrats will be the ones shutting down the government.
Why run from this battle? Let the government shut down, and place the onus on Obama; his actions during such a shutdown will surely serve to return the Congress and the Senate to solid, conservative, patriotic American leadership in 2014 and 2016. And, do not worry about the essentials of government, because they continue normally during a government shutdown, unless Obama’s inclination towards illegal activity moves him to act unConstitutionally and interfere with the military, Medicare and Social Security.
House Representatives, such as Diane Black (R-TN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) have suggested that a government shutdown will allow Obama to decide which government services are the most vital for the “protection of life and property,” and they believe he will have the government purse at his disposal through “discretionary spending”. However, the President does not have such authority anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or any of its 27 Amendments. Essentially, they are saying that Obama will fund the PPACA even if he has to take funds from numerous government departments, illegally and unConstitutionally… which has never stopped him before; and, he may do just that, since he has no regard for the law, the U.S. Constitution or Our American Heritage!
Many elected officials, as well as noted newscaster Brit Hume (FoxNews), have observed that Obama will not readily accept a delay of the individual mandate, even though he illegally delayed the business mandate, because Obama needs to get the money flowing and people hooked on the “free” subsidized benefits under the PPACA; it is nearly impossible to reduce or end such a program, once it is really up and running, as history shows.
We cannot let Obamacare become permanently embedded in the social fabric of America; good or bad, Obamacare is nowhere near ready for implementation, therefore, delay, at the very least, is absolutely necessary, but ‘We the People’ continue to demand, “Defund Obamacare!”
When will anyone stand and fight? …ever?
“We don’t have the votes”…damn you Bob Corker…tell me something I don’t know and get out there and fight for those votes! If You spent as much time fighting to defund Obamacare as you do holding Obama’s hand and stating the obvious, Obamacare would already be a thing of the past!
Obama and his administration, the U.S. federal government or any government does not have the authority to trespass on our individual sovereignty. So, I will not be signing up for Obamacare on October 1, 2013 through January 2017, or at any time during my lifetime, and I will not voluntarily answer any medical questions on IRS tax-forms; fine me $285, $975 or $2085, I will not pay; come to arrest me, I will resist.
Anyone following my example will be called “criminal” by Obama and the Progressives… the real criminals. But, there is nothing “criminal” in defending the U.S. Constitution, Our American Heritage and our freedom, as we strive to return America to governance as a Constitutional Republic, rather than under an elitist despot. You are the Patriots!
As we engage in civil disobedience, let us all start a conversation with our state legislators and ask them to start working towards a States’ Convention for the purpose of proposing an Amendment to the Constitution that repeals the PPACA. A good starting point will have one state legislature…Tennessee, Virginia, Texas?… discuss this quickly with the other 49 legislatures; as soon as they can come to an agreement on this matter, they can begin choosing their delegates for the Convention.
Each respective state legislature will vote to attend or decline participation in such a Convention, and some states may place the question to the people in a referendum. It only takes thirty-three states presenting their Applications to congress to get the ball rolling, and Congress cannot impede this process in any manner, because its role regarding Article V is purely ministerial; the President and the U.S. Supreme Court cannot interfere with this Application or a convening States’ Convention.
There is also not any need to fear the myth of a “runaway Convention,” since each state delegate is sent with a very specific agenda in mind and directed by a quorum of the state legislature. These delegates are also subject to immediate recall if they stray erroneously from previously decided guidelines. And, whatever is proposed at one of these Conventions, in this case repealing Obamacare, must receive an affirmative vote from three fourths of the states; it naturally will also take some time to organize, but it is time well invested for the future of the American people.
Freedom and the dignity of the individual has never been more available and assured than right here in America, until the advance of the Obama regime. Our ancestors paid a high price for this Freedom, and Americans are certainly poised to pay a high price now and battle Obama and the Progressives with every available means. Whether or not Congress and the Senate ultimately defund Obamacare, Americans can and will decide on their own if they will be a free, responsible and prosperous people living under a Constitutional limited government or a dependent, indolent and impoverished people living at the State’s pleasure: We are too great a nation to limit ourselves and tolerate the confines of the tranny embodied by the PPACA and Obama’s “fundamental transformation!”
By Justin O. Smith
© Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
John R. Houk
© July 24, 2013
America’s Left – which means the Democratic Party and President Barack Hussein Obama – preach the acceptance of Diversity, Multiculturalism and Equality. As benevolent as those terms are they mean one thing to Leftists and promoted as something else to the typical Joe American voter.
Joe American is told Diversity is fair and equal acceptance of belief systems and such ungodly practices as homosexuality. Compassion for all ways of thinking and lifestyle practices sounds very high minded and agreeable, right?
A Latin motto that can be seen on U.S. money and the Great Seal is E Pluribus Unum – Out of many, one. This addresses diversity in America. Below is the original intent of the motto. Also the early flow of immigrants in America expanded on the original intent:
On the Great Seal of the United States, the phrase appears in the banner held in the beak of the American eagle. The busy eagle is also holding an olive branch and a quiver of arrows in its left and right talons, respectively. The phrase is meant to symbolize the union of the 13 original colonies, and their close relationship with the federal government. Over time, people have also taken “e pluribus unum” to refer to the ethnic diversity in the United States. (What Does “E Pluribus Unum” Mean? wiseGEEK)
E Pluribus Unum does not emphasize an Out of many, ensure multiple ethnic and gender identities. Rather the motto emphasizes out of a diverse amount of people ONE America emerges. An article I found at The Road to Emmaus reproduced an essay from The Patriot Post. The essay addresses America’s immigration policy under the original intent of the Founding Fathers adoption of E Pluribus Unum. I like the assertions of the early part of the essay:
“[T]he policy or advantage of [immigration] taking place in a body may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word, soon become one people.”
Out of many, one.
That was the national motto proposed by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1776. Both simple and elegant, it embodied the notion that all who had come to America’s shores, and all who would come, must be united—must all form one front—in defense of freedom and liberty. For 200 years, we were, largely, one people united behind constitutional republicanism. But soon after the social turbulence of the ’60s and the economic woes of the ’70s, that unity began to crumble. This was the era in which multiculturalism emerged—the era in which ethnocentricity became chic.
Arthur Schlesinger, a former Harvard professor and senior advisor to JFK, published a retrospective on this era in 1991 called “The Disuniting of America.” Schlesinger wrote primarily about the orthodoxy of self-interested hyphenated-American citizen groups—who, rather than unifying to become one, were diversifying to become many. He warned that the cult of ethnicity would result in “the fragmentation and tribalization of America,” the natural consequence being that these special-interest groups would be co-opted by the political parties.
“Instead of a transformative nation with an identity all its own,” Schlesinger wrote, “America increasingly sees itself in this new light as preservative of diverse alien identities—groups ineradicable in their ethnic character.” He asserts, by way of inquiry, “Will the melting pot give way to the Tower of Babel?”
The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the debate about immigration.
The disuniting of America is a foundational concern underlying much of the current security, economic and social debate (both rational and irrational) about immigration. This is the concern that a nation, which is already ethnically fragmented internally, risks complete disunity of its national integrity in the absence of borders. (E pluribus unum? Posted by The Road to Emmaus, Written by The Patriot Post [07 April 2006 | THE Patriot Post.US http://patriotpost.us/ | Patriot No. 06-14] READ THE REST)
The Leftist concept of “Diversity” is not an American concept.
Multiculturalism and diversity go hand in hand. Multiculturalism is the practice of upholding cultural standards that are foreign to America rather than to assimilate into American culture. Assimilation brings unity of purpose to a nation. If each diverse culture separates from America in emphasizing a foreign heritage and language above that which unifies America then disunity will ensue. Disunity in a nation magnifies conflict. Conflict leads to social chaos. Intense social chaos leads to the fracturing of the fabric of a nation. When the USA fractures kiss that which has made America great goodbye. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution which have formed a Union of States will become interests of past history rather than the center piece of American cultural unity.
Multiculturalism is a body of thought in political philosophy about the proper way to respond to cultural and religious diversity. Mere toleration of group differences is said to fall short of treating members of minority groups as equal citizens; recognition and positive accommodation of group differences are required through “group-differentiated rights,” a term coined by Will Kymlicka (1995). Some group-differentiated rights are held by individual members of minority groups, as in the case of individuals who are granted exemptions from generally applicable laws in virtue of their religious beliefs or individuals who seek language accommodations in schools or in voting. Other group-differentiated rights are held by the group qua group rather by its members severally; such rights are properly called group rights, as in the case of indigenous groups and minority nations, who claim the right of self-determination. In the latter respect, multiculturalism is closely allied with nationalism.
While multiculturalism has been used as an umbrella term to characterize the moral and political claims of a wide range of disadvantaged groups, including African Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the disabled, most theorists of multiculturalism tend to focus their arguments on immigrants who are ethnic and religious minorities (e.g. Latinos in the U.S., Muslims in Western Europe), minority nations (e.g. Catalans, Basque, Welsh, Québécois), and indigenous peoples (e.g. Native peoples in North America, Maori in New Zealand). (Multiculturalism; Sarah Song; The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.))
Here are some excerpts from a Thomas Sowell essay on the evils of Multiculturalism:
Among the many irrational ideas about racial and ethnic groups that have polarized societies over the centuries and around the world, few have been more irrational and counterproductive than the current dogma of multiculturalism.
Intellectuals who imagine that they are helping racial or ethnic groups that lag behind by redefining their lags out of existence with multicultural rhetoric are in fact leading them into a blind alley.
Multiculturalism, like the caste system, paints people into the corner where they happened to have been born. But at least the caste system does not claim to benefit those at the bottom.
Multiculturalism not only serves the ego interests of intellectuals, it serves the political interests of elected officials, who have every incentive to promote a sense of victimhood, and even paranoia, among groups whose votes they want in exchange for both material and psychic support.
The biggest losers in all this are those members of racial minorities who allow themselves to be led into the blind alley of resentment and rage even when there are broad avenues of opportunity available. And we all lose when society is polarized. (READ ENTIRETY – The Dogma of Multiculturalism; By Thomas Sowell; National Review Online; 3/15/13 12:00 AM)
Frosty Wooldridge on the evils of Multiculturalism:
Those people with hyphenated nationalities manifest “multiculturalism.”
By its very name, it destroys one culture by breaking it into many. It’s like throwing a baseball through a window in a house, fracturing it into many pieces. The window can no longer protect that house from rain, winds or snow. Additionally, with numerous cultures come multiple languages. Linguistic chaos equals unending tension. The writer, Kant, said, “The two great dividers are religion and language.”
On the other hand, millions respond and respect their one allegiance as that of being an “American.” Thus, we grow as a country at odds with itself. We lose our national identity with every added citizen who calls him/herself a hyphenated American.
Europe provides a peek into our future. Their Muslim-British immigrants stand at odds with everything English. If you visit London, you will find two separate societies. The Muslim-French immigrants balk at everything French. The Muslim-Dutch backlash against everything in Holland. Ethiopian-Norwegians will not assimilate into Norway’s culture.
Today, America’s grand 232 year run fractures, falters and degrades under the march of “multiculturalism.” The word sounds unifying, inclusive and respectful. Yet how unified can a nation remain where a foreign language forces its way into our national character? Los Angeles provides a peek into our future where Mexican culture “overtook” its way into dominance.
A recent PEW report shows America adding 138 million people in four decades. Of that number, 90 million immigrants will reach America’s shores by 2050. One in five citizens will be born out of our country. They drag in 100 incompatible third world cultures.
The mind-boggling first question remains: should all these immigrants that arrive from failed cultures succeed in their demands that we respect the injection of their culture and language into ours?
Yes, integrity mandates respect for all cultures and people. However, when will Americans leap past “political correctness” to stop the death of America? (READ ENTIRETY – Multiculturalism – Destroying American Culture; By Frosty Wooldridge; Rense.com; 3/13/08)
Regardless of what Leftists tell you, Multiculturalism is nation destroying and NOT nation building.
“Equality” is another one of those words that evoke fairness. Here are three online dictionary definitions of equality:
1. [T]he state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities – Oxford Dictionaries
2. [T]he state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
[U]niform character, as of motion or surface. (Dictionary.com)
3 [T]he quality or state of being equal: the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.
▪ racial/gender equality ▪ the ideals of liberty and equality ▪ women’s struggle for equality (Merriam-Webster Learner’s Dictionary)
As a Conservative Equality and Liberty are not interchangeable as Leftists view the terms. The best concise differentiation I have found on Equality and Liberty that I have ran into so far is from the website Community Of Liberty:
Here is the overview of this lecture by Thomas West, the Paul and Dawn Potter Professor of Politics at Hillsdale.
The Declaration of Independence
The soul of the American founding is located in the universal political principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The meaning of equality and liberty in the Declaration is decisively different than the definition given to those principles by modern progressivism.
Liberty is the right to be free from the coercive interference of other people. It is derived from nature itself, and is a natural right—something possessed simply because one is a human being.
Equality means no one is by nature the ruler of any other person. Each human being is equal in his right to life, liberty, and property which the Declaration calls “the pursuit of happiness.”
Equality, liberty, and natural rights require a certain form of government: republicanism, based on consent of the governed. Legitimate government, based on the consent of the governed, must accomplish three things: the establishment of civil laws that protect man’s natural rights; the punishment of those who infringe on others’ natural rights; and the protection of natural rights through a strong national defense.
The people themselves also play a vital role in protecting their rights. They must be educated in “religion, morality, and knowledge.”
Modern liberalism uses the same language of “liberty” and “equality” as the Declaration of Independence. Yet modern liberals mean something other than what the Founders meant by those words. For the Progressives, “equality” means equal access to resources and wealth, while “liberty” means the ability to utilize a right, rather than the right in itself. Both of these ideas necessitate government programs that help mankind liberate itself from its “natural limitations.”
The Declaration of Independence and modern Progressivism are fundamentally opposed to each other. The modern misunderstanding of “equality” and “liberty” threatens not just the Declaration of Independence, but the whole of the American constitutional and moral order. (What Did the Founders Mean by Equality and Liberty? Community of Liberty)
Equality under the Founding Fathers is closer to equality of opportunity rather than an egalitarian Equality in the State that takes from some to distribute others that are less innovative or less entrepreneurial in their financial portfolio. Equality is not providing the same benefits to an immoral person as a moral person. Equality does not mean equalizing ungodly lifestyles to godly lifestyles. Equality does not mean shutting out Christianity in order for Secularism and other religions enjoy extra rights to equalize with the majority cultural religion America.
Liberty means individual autonomy beyond the collective to accomplish a financial portfolio according to one’s ability and to live a life of any ideology or religion that does not break the equal protections in the rule of law that is dispersed on a collective basis. The rule of law must be enforced equally to the entire collective of the nation regardless of Race, Religion or Personal Beliefs. If ethnicity, Religion and Personal Beliefs diverge from the rule of law then it is the ethnicity, Religion and Personal Beliefs that transform to the rule of law. In America the rule of law is influenced by the first British and Europeans that came to America for Religious Liberty not experienced in the Old World where the State Established Church was preeminent. Another group of British came to America seeking economic opportunity that was not available back on the European continent. People that became the intelligentsia of early America were trained in the classical academics and Christian theology of the period. Ancient writers from Greece and Rome were an influence in an emerging political philosophy that the Founding Fathers combined with Christian principles that coalesced the nascent socio-political structure that became a part of America’s Founding Documents culminating in the United States Constitution.
Political Correctness has been kind to ideological appellations of the left side of the political spectrum. Such names as “Progressive” and “Liberal” are as misleading as the terms Diversity, Multiculturalism and Equality. People who wittingly or unwittingly (unwitting = mesmerized by altruism) look leftward for a principal of life are LEFTISTS.
I originally intended these thoughts as an introduction to a Eugene Delgaudio email that informs about how the Leftist influenced government is silently criminalizing Christianity. The silence is because the Leftist natured Mainstream Media (MSN) does not report on the slow criminalization of Christianity on a National basis. On the other hand the MSM is quick to denounce anything related to Christianity that prays in a public forum that taxes are associated. Also the MSM is quick to denounce Christianity that confronts moral degradation in America such as homosexuality or pornography. This secret persecution of Christianity is reprehensible. I will use Delgaudio’s email in the next post so you too can feel my outrage.
John R. Houk
© July 2, 2013
Yesterday I posted an exposé from a pro-Catholic and traditional morality Vlog site called ChurchMilitantTV about a closet homosexual lobby within the Vatican itself. Homosexuality spoken about was actually a problem that has plagued the Catholic Church for some time. That moral plague is predator Priests enticing and/or forcing minor boys to have sex with them. The crime of pedophilia is an act that most Americans find disgustingly abhorrent that a man would defile a male child in such a cruel fashion. In Christianity the Clergy of Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox Churches are supposed to be a paradigm of morality as established by the Holy Scriptures.
Indeed Christian-hating Leftists and homosexual activists have gone to great lengths to exploit this small lobby contagion of homosexuals within the Catholic Church as hypocrites. These Christian-haters use Pedophile Priests as a good reason to nullify the morality of Christianity to be replaced by Moral Relativity.
Leftists and homosexual activists of course are quite selective in heaping Christian-hating epithets at the Roman Catholic Church. These same Christian-haters will turn around and heap praise on Protestant Denominations that have invalidated Biblical Morality to grasp at Moral Relativity. I found a Wikipedia table diagram of Churches that are accepting of homosexuality in four categories: membership, Ordination, blessing same-sex unions and marrying same-sex couples. I am uncertain on how up to date the diagram is. Below is a list of mainline Protestant Denominations from that list that are accepting of homosexuality regardless of the Word of God condemning the vulgar lifestyle:
Christian Church-Disciples of Christ:
Reformed Church in America
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America-ELCA
Presbyterian Church USA
Religious Society of Friends-Quakers
United Church of Christ-UCC
3) Same-Sex Unions
The United Methodist Church (UMC) was not on that Wikipedia table diagram; however the UMC is amenable to homosexual membership while condemning the homosexual lifestyle. Also the UMC will probably formerly accept ordination and same-sex marriage because both aspects exist even though UMC rules says no to both.
If I missed any Denominations that have tossed out the Bible when it comes to homosexuality I am confident someone will point it out to me.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently drove America further into Moral Relativity and away from Biblical Morality by destroying the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that mandated that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Then SCOTUS overturned the will of California State voters by essentially affirming a District Court ruling in California that Proposition 8 – which like DOMA declared marriage a union between a man and a woman – was unconstitutional. SCOTUS said the legal team defending Proposition 8 had no standing in Court because it was a private organization doing the California State government’s job. Of course old Governor Moonbeam and the State legislation are dominated by Christian-Morality-Hating Democrats; thus the State government refused to defend the will of the California State voters.
I am rehashing the SCOTUS anti-Christian activism in the last near hundred years over the Original Intent of the Constitution because now further moral degradation will be in America’s future. The pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church could become legalized as the next step in Moral Relativity. If America becomes propagandized into totally accepting the moral depravity of homosexuality, Man/Boy sexual relations will not be far behind in the legal acceptance in the rule of law.
After Moral Relativism mandates Man/Boy NAMBLA style acceptance of sexual relationships then it will be illegal in the USA for the majority Roman Catholic hierarchy to discipline pederast Priests that will claim those boys voluntarily engaged in sex with adult Priests. Incidents described in this article will longer be scandalous.
Italian investigators have opened an inquiry into claims by a convicted paedophile priest that an underage prostitution ring has been operating inside the Holy Roman Church with clergymen hiring rentboys for sex inside churches.
Don Patrizio Poggi, 46, told Italian authorities that a former Carabinieri pimped boys for nine clergymen.
Poggi, who served a five-year sentence for abusing teenage boys while he was a parish priest at the San Filippo Neri church in Rome, said he made the allegations to “protect the Holy Church and the Christian community.”
The boys were chosen because they were starving and desperate, he claimed, according to Il Messaggero newspaper.
The former policeman used to recruit the boys, mostly eastern European immigrants, outside a gay bar named Twink near Rome’s Termini train station. He reportedly sat in his Fiat Panda – marked “Emergency Blood” to avoid parking fines – to make his selection.
He was helped in the recruitment process by a friend who ran a modelling agency. He lured underage boys into prostitution through “false work offers for modelling and acting roles”, Poggi said.
The agent also looked for rentboys at gay discos, saunas and gyms across Rome. An accountant was also said to be involved.
The boys were paid €150-€500 (£130-£425) to perform sex acts in church premises across the capital.
Poggi also accused the former Carabinieri of selling consecrated hosts for satanic rites.
Poggi reportedly presented documentary and photographic evidence to police in the company of two senior Vatican clergymen who vouched for his credibility.
Poggi identified the nine clergymen, including two senior church officials and a religion lecturer. Three people have been placed under formal investigation.
The allegations were rejected by the Vatican. Cardinal Agostino Vallini, head of the Catholic Vicariate of Rome, said the priest made false claims out of a desire for vengeance and personal resentment.
The Vatican refused to reinstate Poggi after he served his term.
“The cardinal expresses his full confidence in the magistracy and declares himself full convinced that this slander will be demolished, demonstrating Poggi’s claims to be untrue,” Vallini said.
“God will hold everyone accountable for their deeds.” (Vatican Rentboy and Satanism Claims Revealed by Paedophile Priest Don Patrizio Poggi; By Umberto Bacchi; IBT; 6/27/13 11:35 AM GMT)
And check this out from Leftist website Right Wing Watch. The irony is the post is meant as an indictment against Conservatives and Biblical Morality yet the article is informative of the path SCOTUS is taking Christianity in America.
Gary Bauer is joining other anti-gay activists in warning that they should prepare to face jail time as a result of gay rights victories at the Supreme Court. In the Washington Times today, Bauer claims that people who oppose same-sex marriage will “find themselves in court” and religious people may soon be “fined or jailed” because of their views.
The ultimate goal of homosexual-rights activists is not to legalize same-sex marriage. Rather, it is to silence those who disagree with them and, if necessary, to throw them in jail. In a world in which the biblical viewpoint of marriage is demonized, it does not take a constitutional scholar to predict that soon those who hold that view will find themselves in court.
How did we get to the point where homosexual-rights activists would be clamoring to redefine society’s oldest and most reliable institution and people of faith would be worried about being fined or jailed for teaching their faith?
A lot had to happen, and it’s not all the left’s fault. It took the breakdown of traditional marriage. It took churches deciding that they could accommodate the homosexual culture or ignore it altogether. It took businesses placing their bottom lines ahead of morality. It took politicians who assured voters on the campaign trail that they would protect marriage and then did nothing to keep their promises once they arrived in Washington.
As a society, we have lost the understanding of what marriage is and what the consequences will be if we redefine it. Nobody has the right to redefine marriage. Doing so ignores research that makes clear that children do best when raised by a mother and a father. Nobody has the right to force children to grow up without the unique contributions that a mother and a father provide.
Not to be outdone, Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily claims the Supreme Court may take away Christians’ right to vote:
Now where do we go from here?
It’s obvious, isn’t it?
The Supreme Court virtually declared an open season on those with whom the 5-4 majority disagree.
We are no longer relevant. What we think no longer counts. We are, after all, bigots who only want to demean homosexuals.
So when does the persecution begin?
When are we stripped of our citizen status, the right to vote, the right to bear arms and other constitutionally guaranteed liberties? Isn’t that next?
If not, why not?
It was just 10 years ago to the day of this decision that the Supreme Court issued another sweeping ruling in the Lawrence v. Texas case. It struck down anti-sodomy laws in that state and, effectively, across the country.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in that case that the ruling would inevitably lead to same-sex marriage and polygamy. The cultural establishment scoffed at that opinion. It mocked Scalia. Why?
Because only 10 years ago, the notion of same-sex marriage was practically unheard of. It was a laughable proposition.
That’s how quickly the 6,000-year-old institution of marriage was officially and arbitrarily redefined with the imprimatur of five high priests and priestesses wearing black robes.
Will it take another 10 years for the retribution against marriage defenders to begin? I doubt it. My guess is the plans are already being drafted.
As for me and my house, however, we will continue to serve the Lord – the author of marriage and everything else. (Bauer: Anti-Gay Activists May Be Thrown in Jail Following DOMA; Posted by Brian Tashman; Right Wing Watch; 6/27/2013 12:30 pm)
Be sure to thank SCOTUS, Leftists and Homosexual Activists when Christianity becomes illegal or speaking Biblical Truths places a Christian in jail and American society devolves into a land like the Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah.
JRH 7/2/13 (Hat Tip: Solid Snake)
John R. Houk
© June 23, 2013
Here is a video I found at The Western Center for Journalism (WCJ) exposing the IRS as an Obama tool against Conservatives and Counterjihad writers/organizations. YET the IRS did not hold up one single Left Wing organization and gave so-called American-Muslim groups with ties to Radical Islam and Islamic Terrorism a path to Charity status within the U.S. tax code.
VIDEO: The IRS and Terrorists
HERE is the WCJ link to read the text version which is located below the video on their website.
Eric Holder has a past of Black militancy which if you know anything about such militancy is actually racism against Caucasians. In Holder’s world view Conservatives are White people show that racism slops over every time a rare moment of scrutiny shines a light on public, private and exposed scandals. Determine The Networks tracks political evolution from overt displays of his youth through to his stealthier present.
John R. Houk
© June 5, 2013
I am leaning more and more toward the opinions of Danny Jeffrey. When Danny sees himself through the eyes of some of his readers he reports that he is a doom and gloom writer. I am not really sure if Danny actually believes this about being this kind of writer. I can tell you this though. He has been right on over time relating to his observations of Americans losing their spine because of the plague known as political correctness. Danny views Americans as becoming so programmed by political correctness that they are too weak to confront the transformative “Change” Barack Hussein Obama has been molding America into.
If Danny is again correct in his observations about the American emerging persona then the America Conservatives believe in is already dead. Danny’s analysis leads to only one solution AND that means only one shot to keep the Founding Fathers’ experiment of a nation in which the primary principle for being is Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The question then is – what is that one shot?
That shot is armed rebellion. The awakening of enough Americans occurs that a second Civil War erupts. The first Civil War was more than about freeing the Slaves. The Southern States were upset that a Federal government had power over their State sovereignty to tell them to free the Slaves. The Southern States formed their Confederacy in order to be a part of a nation in which the rule of law pertaining cultural custom was preserved to the individual States.
The second Civil War – if it comes to that – will be about preserving the Union according to the vision of the Founding Fathers in limited government and the belief that cultural harmony is maintained by a rule of law influenced by Christian Morality rather than a rule of law based on human fiat determining a moral society.
Yeah I did a little extrapolating that I am uncertain if Danny would agree with; ergo I inserted my two cents.
The kind of politics that Danny Jeffrey is talking about seems to assume Obama has no intention of leaving the Office of President of the United States (POTUS). As 2016 approaches some kind of Martial Law would be instituted under the guise of politically correct propaganda telling We the People should submit for the greater good of the nation. Danny believes that most Americans will comply and those that don’t comply will have their guns forcibly removed by some kind of government SWAT under the thumb of the new Obama regime. The Obama regime will undoubtedly have Leftist collaborators popular with Left leaning Americans. Think of a possible Marxist Oligarchic Politburo that will include say Bill and Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and perhaps some other Leftists you could think of.
Danny does not speculate how a Second Civil War would break out to form a more perfect Union. It is my guess there would be a few generals and admirals out there that do not desire to be under a Marxist thumb. A George Washington type general would have to emerge to instill trust in potential rebelling troops against the Obama Marxist Oligarchy. And such a general would have to emerge that also has the ability to reignite the remnants of Constitutional Originalist Conservatives willing to live and die to bring down an unjust government and restore Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
OR we can pray Danny is incorrect and there still are Americans with a Politically INCORRECT spine to begin Obama’s demise with a Conservative dominated House and Senate in 2014. This Conservative House can impeach Obama and this Conservative Senate (sans Dem leader Reid) can convict Obama. This is to all lead to the greatest prosecution for justice against the most corrupt government in American history.
OR Danny is correct and societal chaos will give Obama the excuse to institute Martial Law and only as the public openly dissents and various generals and admirals join public dissent then a Second Civil War saves or dooms America.
Hmm… This could be a Big Brother moment for Danny or me. I wonder if Obama’s IRS will give either of us an invitation.
John R. Houk
© June 3, 2013
The blogger Danny Jeffrey has often been critical of the U.N. and Obama international principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The public presentation of R2P is that the international community has a responsibility to protect civilians of a nation placed in a life threatening dangerous position from either its government or perhaps internal terrorism the local government cannot cope with or both. AND that sounds altruistic enough, don’t you think?
Jeffrey’s criticism is simple. R2P is a tool of Leftist Globalists and the U.N. to have an excuse to further the agenda of a global New World Order under some kind of dual Leftist-Islamic design. Danny Jeffrey off the top of my head seems to emphasize the Caliphate agenda of Radical Islam.
I say “off the top of my head” because it seems that Danny’s essays that I have read tend to be suspicious of Islam’s goal to destroy Israel and the Leftist tend to agree with that agenda. I personally think global Leftists and the Caliphate agenda Muslims are taking advantage of each other with the intention of screwing each other over. My reasoning for this thinking is that Leftists are not fond of religious influence in general and Islam is not fond of any other religions or ideologies that are secularist at best and atheistic at worst. As far as Islam is concerned that would run the Leftist gamut of Secular Humanist Socialists to atheistic Marxists.
Thus in my line of thinking the Leftist-Radical Islam unity is more like an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” agenda until that enemy is eliminated. If that situation occurs you can imagine the global bloodlust that would follow a global Leftist vs. global Muslim Caliphate war. It would be like medieval days when the winners destroyed en masse the losers. Protocols of modern Western Civilization would be totally thrown out the door while such a war would be a series of battles in which each battle victory by either side would be an ethnic cleansing moment until the victors would be the only ones standing after ethnic cleansing annihilation.
A global Leftist-Caliphate war would be an End Times apocalypse in nature.
In this sense I agree with Danny that R2P is a nefarious thing that the long term affects will be of no good for people (Mostly Americans) who love Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The long term affects of R2P will strengthen the ulterior motives of global Leftists and global Caliphate Muslims to the horrible misfortune of Christians and Bill of Rights minded Americans. Both Christians and Bill of Rights minded Americans are the target of destruction by global Leftists and global Caliphate Muslims.
However when it comes to Syria, I believe dumping Bashar al-Assad will throw a monkey wrench in the Caliphate agenda because it will highlight the mutual hatred that Sunnis and Shias have for each other. Sunnis represent roughly 90% of Islam and Shias represent roughly 10% Islam.
The largest Shia nation is Iran of which that nation’s Mullocracy are mostly Twelver Shias. They are called Twelvers because they believe a Twelfth or Hidden Imam will reveal himself and force Islam upon the whole Earth. That Twelfth Imam is a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. Therein lay the hatred between Sunnis and Shias.
The Sunnis beat back the Shias in a war in which the last Mohammed relative that was a Caliph – Ali – had his Caliphate terminated by assassination. The Shias believed only a person of a Mohammed ancestry line could guide Muslims as Caliph. Allegedly the last living relative of Mohammed (the twelfth in lineage that is) disappeared. I am uncertain what the Sunnis believe about this guy – perhaps Sunnis believe he was killed or perhaps never existed; thus ending any claim to a hereditary Caliphate. I am certain that the Shias believe this twelfth Imam and descendant of Mohammed via Ali went into some sort of occultation to be hidden until the time was right for revealing himself to secure the Earth for Islam.
Okay that is a brief summary of the Sunni-Shia divide that is roughly correct but I am sure is filled with anomalies from the Sunni or Shia perspective.
The thing is Iran – a Shia theocratic nation – has regional designs as in being the top Muslim dog in the Middle East. Iran is the only Muslim nation that has an open destructive against both Israel and America that will undoubted be threatening because the development of nuclear weapons.
Iran’s principle allies in the region are Assad’s Shia-Alawite minority Syrian government and Hezbollah-Shia terrorist dominated Lebanon. Taking out Assad from this religious maniac alliance of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah will disrupt the military designs of Iran.
Of course the problem that Danny will point is that Syrian rebels fighting against Assad are religious nuts of radical Sunni-Muslims that essentially and probably will lead to a problem for the USA and Israel. My thinking is though that the USA and Israel already have a problem with Israel. So why not place Iran is a situation that some of their nefarious regional goals are disrupted by killing or booting Assad out of Syrian control?
So here I am in the unenviable position of both agreeing and disagreeing with Danny Jeffrey’s most recent essay on R2P, aiding the Syrian rebels, Obama’s support of those rebels and Senator McCain’s pushing Obama to support those rebels.
And yet I also have to tell you that Obama is the most corrupt President as to supporting the Constitutional principles of the Founding Fathers since Aaron Burr almost attained that Presidency in our then young Republic. When Obama says “Change” he means transform America away from the Bill of Rights and to at least make America a Multiculturalist Socialist-Democratic nation and at worst a Marxist utopia with no Liberty whatsoever.