Don’t Mention The Name Of Jesus Christ In Obama’s Fascist Military. God Damn America!!!

I have been predicting (see here and here and here and here and here) that the United States military was going to hell for years now. 

Well, it is virtually official now:

Pentagon: Religious Proselytizing is Not Permitted
By Todd Starnes
April 30, 2013

Religious liberty groups have grave concerns after they learned the Pentagon is vetting its guide on religious tolerance with a group that compared Christian evangelism to “rape” and advocated that military personnel who proselytize should be court martialed.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is calling on the Air Force to enforce a regulation that they believe calls for the court martial of any service member caught proselytizing.

President Mikey Weinstein and others from his organization met privately with Pentagon officials on April 23. He said U.S. troops who proselytize are guilty of sedition and treason and should be punished – by the hundreds if necessary – to stave off what he called a “tidal wave of fundamentalists.”

“Someone needs to be punished for this,” Weinstein told Fox News. “Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, told Fox News he was stunned that the Pentagon would be taking counsel and advice from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

“Why would military leadership be meeting with one of the most rabid atheists in America to discuss religious freedom in the military,” Perkins said. “That’s like consulting with China on how to improve human rights.”

The FRC has launched a petition drive urging Defense Sec. Chuck Hagel to protect the religious freedom of troops “and not to proceed with the purge of religion within the ranks called for by anti-Christian activists.”

Pentagon officials met with Weinstein and his group were to discuss a policy called “Air Force Culture, Air Force Standards,” published on Aug. 7, 2012.

Section 2.11 requires “government neutrality regarding religion.”

“Leaders at all levels must balance constitutional protections for an individual’s free exercise of religion or other personal beliefs and the constitutional prohibition against governmental establishment of religion,” the regulation states.

Military leaders were admonished not to use their position to “promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion.”

Weinstein said it’s time for the Air Force to enforce the regulation – with zeal.

“If a member of the military is proselytizing in a manner that violates the law, well then of course they can be prosecuted,” he said. “We would love to see hundreds of prosecutions to stop this outrage of fundamentalist religious persecution.”

He compared the act of proselytizing to rape.

“It is a version of being spiritually raped and you are being spiritually raped by fundamentalist Christian religious predators,” he told Fox News.

He said there is a time and a place for those in uniform to share their faith – but he took issues with fundamentalism that he says is causing widespread problems in the military.

“When those people are in uniform and they believe there is no time, place or manner in which they can be restricted from proselytizing, they are creating tyranny, oppression, degradation, humiliation and horrible, horrible pain upon members of the military,” he said.

Perkins said the military regulations have “Weinstein’s fingerprints all over it.”

“It threatens to treat service members caught witnessing as enemies of the state,” he said, referring to a Washington Post article highlighting Weinstein’s meeting with Pentagon officials. “Non-compliance, the Pentagon suggests, even from ordained chaplains could result in court-martialing on a case-by-case basis.”

The Pentagon confirmed to Fox News that Christian evangelism is against regulations.

“Religious proselytization is not permitted within the Department of Defense, LCDR Nate Christensen said in a written statement. He declined to say if any chaplains or service members had been prosecuted for such an offense.

“Court martials and non-judicial punishments are decided on a case-by-case basis and it would be inappropriate to speculate on the outcome in specific cases,” he said.

Ron Crews, the executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, warns that the Air Force policy would “significantly impact the religious liberties of Air Force personnel.”

“Saying that a service member cannot speak of his faith is like telling a service member he cannot talk about his spouse or children,” Crews said. “I do not think the Air Force wants to ban personnel from protected religious speech, and I certainly hope that it is willing to listen to the numerous individuals and groups who protect military religious liberty without demonizing service members.”

In an interview with the Washington Post, Weinstein called proselytizing a “national security threat.”

“And what the Pentagon needs to understand is that it is sedition and treason,” he told the newspaper. “It should be punished.”

Perkins said it was troubling the Obama Administration would place so much trust in someone like Weinstein.

“Unfortunately, it appears our military is on a forced march away from the very freedoms they are sworn to protect,” he said. “This language from Weinstein that Christians who share their faith or offer comfort to others from their faith in Jesus Christ is “sedition and treason” is a treasonous statement in and of itself.”

But Weinstein said they count thousands of Protestants among their ranks – and said they are simply going after fundamentalists.

“As soon as we find a fundamentalist Muslim, atheist, Jewish person or anybody else, we will be happy to fight them – but so far they have been few and far between,” he said.

Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, an executive vice president with the Family Research Council, told Fox News that he’s deeply concerned by what he call a pattern of attacks on Christianity within the military.

“Mickey Weinstein has a very visceral hated of Christianity and those who are Christians,” he said. “He’d like to see it eliminated from the military entirely.”

If the Air Force policy is implemented, Boykin said Christians who speak of their faith “could now be prosecuted as enemies of the state.”

“This has the potential to destroy military recruiting across the services as Americans realize that their faith will be suppressed by joining the military,” Boykin said.

In the meantime, Weinstein and his group said they will continue to push for the Pentagon to fully implement its ban on proselytizing.

“There is a time, place and manner in which proselytizing is not only allowed, but it’s something we support among our Christian clients,” Weinstein said. “However, you can’t scream fire in a crowded theater and you can’t scream Jesus in a crowded theater at certain times, places, and in certain manners.”

As we speak, a Christian was just sentenced to death in Iran.  His crime?  Being a Christian.  Which of course makes rabid atheists like Weinstein happy.  He wants Iran to come to America and do unto the Christians as Iran is doing unto them.  Apparently Obama agrees.

Just today, we’ve got a Christian in North Korea being sentenced to fifteen years of hard labor.  What was his crime?  Being a Christian.  And the vicious communist monsters in North Korea view being a Christian exactly the same way that Weinstein views them: as seditious traitors.

There is a 100% correlation between “state atheism” and the most inhuman and murderous form of communism.  I have repeatedly documented that fact:

Obama And His Liberal Fascists Want To Ban Guns. Why Don’t We Ban Anti-Christian Worldviews Instead?

How Secular Humanists And Progressive Liberals Have Always Exempted Themselves From The Darwinian Evolution They Inflict On Everybody Else

Secular Humanist Left So ‘Tolerant’ They Want To Purge Anyone Who Isn’t Just Like Them

Where Economic Marxism – And LIBERALISM – Truly Comes From: Hostility Toward God And Religion

In yet another article, I document:

We’ve seen the kinds of places that Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and numerous other atheists yearn for: they’re called “re-education camps,” and they come only from officially state atheist societies:

State atheism has been defined as the official “promotion of atheism” by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom and practice.^[1]

State promotion of atheism as a public norm was first practised during a brief period in Revolutionary France. Only communist states and socialist states have done so since.

And it is no coincidence that these communist officially state atheist societies have murdered more human beings during peacetime than have been killed in all the wars in history.

Or take the Nazis. Please, as they say.

So now it is an official crime against the state to say the name of Jesus?

State atheists like Weinstein are guilty of murdering more than 100 million of their own people.  During peacetime.  I’d call THAT “horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior.”  But atheists like Mikey Weinstein would just call it another day at the office.

Atheist Mao murdered 45 million people in just four years - again during PEACETIME.  Atheist Joseph Stalin signed mass death warrants late into the night and murdered tens of millions - during peacetime.

Let’s consider these TRUE monsters words.  Let’s consider the worldview of state atheism:

Joseph Stalin said:

“One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

Chairman Mao said:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

Versus Abraham Lincoln, who said:

… that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

But America has made its choice.

This is Obama’s God damn America, just as I have been saying over and over.  One day every Democrat baby-murdering queer sodomy-lover will one day burn in hell.

And the beast is coming.   Obama is his Useful Idiot in Chief.  And Americans will worship him and take his mark on their right hands or on their foreheads.

Blame Barack Obama And Failed Democrat Policies For North Korea

Let’s see.  Under the Obama presidency and under his regime, North Korea has had two nuclear tests, repeatedly tested ballistic missiles, threatened America more times than in ANY previous administration, and just moved missiles to threaten South Korea.  Right after re-starting a nuclear plant that they had shut down under Bush.

Generals and foreign policy experts are saying that North Korea – under the Obama regime’s handling, mind you – is a greater threat than it has EVER been.

Meanwhile, under Obama’s failed presidency, we had the meltdown that the mainstream media liberals so idiotically called “the Arab Spring.”  We had violent revolutions across the Arab world as the governments of vital U.S. allies were toppled by terrorist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  With Egypt now instituting sharia law to complete the insult.  We have incredible bloodbaths under Obama with Syria’s death toll now numbering over 70,000.   We have Iran on the verge of getting their nukes and their ballistic missiles and their Armageddon.  And where are the hypocrite Democrats now who teed off so viciously on George W. Bush???  Where are they in decrying Obama for a far, far worse and more unstable world?

Let’s get in our memory trains and take a little ride, when Obama’s future Secretary of State was demagoguing Bush in the most savage way imaginable:

Democrats blew it on North Korea
Now they should join Republicans to force changes in the country’s behavior
October 15, 2006 12:00 am
By Jack Kelly / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

If Democrats went after America’s enemies with the ruthlessness with which  they attack Republicans, the Axis of Evil would be toast.

No sooner had North Korea completed its (botched or faked) nuclear bomb test  last weekend than Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Clinton,  D-N.Y., were blaming it on “the failed policies of the Bush administration.”

That annoyed Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.:

“I would remind Sen. Clinton . . . that the framework agreement her husband’s  administration negotiated was a failure,” he said. “Every single time the  Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something — not to kick out  the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from their reactor — they did  it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with  further talks.”

Media commentators spun Mr. McCain’s remarks as jockeying with Ms. Clinton  for the presidency in 2008, but in fact Mr. McCain had been speaking out against  her husband’s Agreed Framework deal with North Korea since May of 1994.

Here is the history Democrats would like you to forget: The CIA began  worrying in the late 1980s that North Korea was trying to build an atomic bomb.  President Clinton attempted to head them off by offering a massive bribe. If the  North Koreans would forgo their nuke plans, the United States would provide them  with 500,000 tons of free fuel oil each year, massive food aid and build for  them two $2 billion nuclear power plants. The deal made North Korea the largest  recipient of U.S. foreign aid in Asia.

Mr. McCain was against the deal from the get-go, because it was all carrots  and no sticks, and there were no safeguards against North Korean cheating.

North Korea took the bribes President Clinton offered, and kept working on  its bomb.

Two experts told a House committee in April of 2000 that North Korea was  producing enough highly radioactive material then to build a dozen bombs a year,  but it is unclear when the North actually built a bomb (if yet) because our  intelligence on the reclusive regime there is so poor.

Most experts think North Korea restarted its nuclear weapons program between  1997 and 1999, said Paul Kerr of the Arms Control Association. But the  Congressional Research Service thinks the North began cheating in 1995.

Signs of cheating were abundant by 2000. Secretary of State Madeleine  Albright flew to Pyongyang that October to put lipstick on the pig. She offered  dictator Kim Jong Il a relaxation of economic sanctions if he’d limit North  Korea’s missile development. Kim took those carrots too, but kept building  missiles.

The Bush administration called North Korea on its cheating and suspended fuel  aid pending an improvement in its behavior. North Korea declared (in 2002) it  had the bomb, and the United States organized the six-party talks to try to  persuade it to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Like Mr. McCain, I thought the Agreed Framework was a bad idea from the  get-go. But I don’t blame the Clinton administration (very much) for trying.  Massive bribery hadn’t been tried before, and if it had worked, it certainly  would have been preferable to war. And, since as far as we know, serious  cheating didn’t begin until 1997 or 1998, it can be argued the deal did buy us a  little time.

But even though the ultimate failure of the Clinton policy of appeasement is  excusable, the refusal of Democrats to acknowledge that failure is not.

Democrats tend to view foreign policy crises through the narrow prism of  their impact on domestic politics. But the villain here isn’t Bill Clinton or  George Bush. It’s Kim Jong Il. And what’s important here is not which party  controls the House of Representatives. It’s whether we can prevent a second  Korean War.

Democrats ordinarily make a fetish of “multilateralism,” which is what  President Bush has been pursuing through the six-party talks, the only format  that offers hope of reining in North Korea short of war, because only China is  in a position to force North Korea to behave.

Kim wants direct negotiations with the United States, both to undermine the  six-party talks, and because he wants to return to the good old days when the  Clinton administration was providing him with aid in exchange for, in effect,  nothing. Democrats, astoundingly, want to give him exactly what he wants,  without first insisting upon a change in his behavior. They would rather restore  a failed policy than admit a mistake.

If tragedy is to be avoided, Democrats must stop putting their partisan  ambitions ahead of the security of the United States.

And, of course, to this day, if Obama were to attack North Korea with as much vile as he has repeatedly attacked Republicans, the Axis of Evil “toast” would be a pile of burnt ash.

I contemplate Kim Jong-Un’s fearmongering rhetoric and have a hard time telling the difference from Obama’s rhetoric on issues such as the sequester.  Both men seem to very much have in common a complete lack of grasp on reality when they are dealing with their political foes.  Just as both men’s national press corps’ seem to have the same determination to present whatever the hell their “dear leaders” are saying with as much deceit.

Democrats, who were of course nearly completely responsible for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, attacked, backbit, undermined, slandered and demonized George Bush at every turn in his attempt to hold talks that would include China as the ONLY country that could reign in North Korea.

Let’s go back and remind ourselves of that, as well:

The radioactive glow had barely worn off Kim Jong Il’s face when liberals began to lay the blame for North Korea’s detonation of a small nuclear device (maybe) at George W. Bush’s feet. But their criticisms have left many of us downright confused.

On North Korea, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid complained, “the Bush administration … [has] made America less secure.” His remedy? “Speak directly with the North Koreans so they understand we will not continue to stand on the sidelines.” Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, concurred that “the strategy must include direct engagement with the North [Koreans].”

Potential Democratic presidential aspirants also want the U.S. to assume the lead role in this unfolding drama. Sen. Russ Feingold (D.-Wisc.) demanded that the Bush administration jettison its “hands-off approach to North Korea,” because “the stakes are too high to rely on others.” And Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) noted that “for five years, I have been calling for the United States to engage in direct talks with North Korea” and “for five years this administration has ignored them.”

But, rather than ignore the metastasizing cancer in North Korea, the United States has expended considerable diplomatic capital on the so-called six-party talks — the long-running effort by the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to convince Kim Jong Il to abandon his nuclear program. This multilateral process, moreover, grew out of the failed Clinton-era effort to engage the North Koreans directly. Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) recently described that process in scathing terms: “Every single time the Clinton administration warned the Koreans not to do something –not to kick out the IAEA inspectors, not to remove the fuel rods from the reactor — they did it. And they were rewarded every single time by the Clinton administration with further talks.”

President Bush abandoned the one-on-one approach when he learned that the North Koreans violated their agreement not to enrich uranium (in exchange for a cool $350 million in fuel), opting instead to invite China and the other regional powers into the process. Thus began three years and five frustrating rounds of six-party talks. At first North Korea participated. Then in February 2005 it withdrew in a huff, only to re-engage a few months later for two more grueling rounds. Finally, Kim Jong Il sent a clear message about these talks when he launched two short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan in March of this year, then seven more over the 4th of July weekend.
Kerry and his allies dismiss this aggressive form of multilateral diplomacy as nothing more than “cover for the administration to avoid direct discussions.”

Hence the confusion. We thought that one of the major foreign policy fault lines separating liberals from conservatives has been whether the United States should reserve the right to act unilaterally to protect its national interests (the conservative position favored by Bush) or whether we should act only after securing the support of our allies (the liberal position embraced by Kerry and virtually all Democrats).

As a presidential candidate, John Kerry summed up the multilateral approach: “Alliances matter. We can’t simply go it alone.” We must exhaust all avenues of diplomacy, persuade rather than bully, and “assemble a team.” The Bush administration’s “blustering unilateralism,” he concluded, is “wrong, and even dangerous, for our country.” And nowhere, Kerry said, is the need for multilateral action more “clear or urgent” than when it comes to preventing the proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons of mass destruction.

And that leads us to North Korea. It appears Kerry favored the multilateral approach before he opposed it. In a major foreign policy address at Georgetown University in 2003, he actually praised Bush’s engagement in the six-party talks: “Finally, the administration is rightly working with allies in the region — acting multilaterally – to put pressure on Pyongyang.” And, he added, “the question is why you’d ever want to be so committed to unilateralist dogma that you’d get on [that merry go round] in the first place.”

So what gives? Isn’t it time for lawmakers to transcend the finger-pointing and focus on the real issue?

Let’s give Sen, Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.) the last word: “The president’s political opponents attack him for a ‘unilateral’ approach to Iraq. Now they attack him over a multilateral approach to North Korea. Listening to some Democrats, you’d think the enemy was George Bush, not Kim Jong Il.”

Mike Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at The Heritage Foundation.

North Korea is now a more psychotic threat than ever before.  But where’s all the denunciations of Obama from the ideologues who used to reign blame down on George Bush???

Remember how the president of the United States was responsible for absolutely everything that went wrong when Bush was that president?  Now we have a president who absolves himself as being responsible for ANYTHING while we’ve got a media that has actively covered up for his failures.  And where are we now?

Our greatest statesman today seems to be Dennis Rodman.

We are watching rogue nation after rogue nation rearing its ugly head and rising to threaten the world because they know that a weakling and a coward is the pathetic failed leader of once-great America.

We are also watching the United States of America degenerate into a banana republic under this failed presidency.  Our welfare roles are rising even faster than the nuclear-armed dictators who shake their fists at us.

Here’s one for you: if Republicans were even a FRACTION as treasonous and willing to undermine America’s national security for cynical political advantage as Democrats have been, they would be demanding that Obama hold one-to-one talks with Kim Jong-Un the way Democrats did when Bush was president.

You probably wouldn’t want me as president: what I would have done – whether in 2006 or today – would be to arm Taiwan with nuclear weapons (to the frothing and rabid outrage of China, which claims that Taiwan is part of China).  And I would simply tell China: “North Korea’s nuclear weapons are every bit as unacceptable to the United States as Taiwan’s having nuclear weapons is to you.  Disarm North Korea’s nukes and we’ll disarm Taiwan’s nukes.”

Leftist CBS Celebrates That ‘The American Empire Was Destroyed’ By Having ‘Amazing Race’ Contestants Dance Around A Shot-Down B-52 In Hanoi

Maybe CBS can have stops at the Hanoi Hilton to celebrate the crushing of the spirits of American POWs next: “And in this cell an American imperialist with untreated broken bones was tied into the shape of a pretzel between meals of the maggots we fed him.”

CBS had their contestants dancing around the wreckage of a shot-down B-52 in Hanoi.  Four crewmen were captured and endured hell at the hands of North Vietnamese torturers.  Two were never found and listed as MIA, presumed dead.  The plaque CBS had stupid Obama-voting punks dance around declares:

“At 22:00 hours on December 27, 1972, the capital’s anti-aircraft forces shot down this B-52 in the area of Ngoc Ha Village. This is one out of 23 B-52s shot down from Hanoi’s skies. The strategic surprise attack against Hanoi by the B-52s of the American Empire was destroyed”

CBS also required that the contestants attend a musical celebration of anti-American propaganda.  You know, just in case the B-52 thing may have been too subtle in declaration of the hatred CBS has for America.

The program amounted to a victory lap for everything communist in celebration of the conquest of everything that our founding fathers dreamed of when they forged America and enshrined its Constitution.

Just to let you know how patholigically despicable and evil our mainstream media propagandist machine truly is.

It was only two days ago – and I am directly quoting the United States Marine Corps here – that Harry Reid as the leader of the Democrat-possessed Senate enaged in “pure political posturing on the backs of these dead Marines.”

Evil is being spread on top of evil on a giant cake of depraved evil in what was once the greatest nation in the history of the world.

The left are a bitter, demonic group of whining entitlement whores who won’t be happy until America is destroyed and a hammer and sickle flag rises over the ashes of our Capitol.

We can go back to the fact that liberals regarded America’s defeat and humiliation in Vietnam as a great victory.  We can go back to the fact that Bill Clinton – the first president to grow up during that Vietnam era dodged the draft by writing of his loathing for the U.S. military.  We can go back to the fact that after writing himself up for a bunch of medals he didn’t deserve, John Kerry slandered the U.S. military by falsely claiming that he had personally witnessed war crimes that he later admitted he had in fact NOT witnessed (confessing his slander of our miltary when he realized that he himself was in fact a war criminal had he witnessed atrocities but not reported them at the time).  John Kerry further demonstrated that he despised the U.S. military by throwing away medals as if they were garbage.  We can go back to the fact that Harry Reid stated that the U.S. military had lost the Iraq War (which we won in spite of his and his fellow Democrats’ treason) while our soldiers were sacrificing to secure victory.  We can go back to the fact that Barack Obama has absolutely gutted the United States military even more than Bill Clinton and before him Jimmy Carter did.  And of course we can go back to just a few days ago when Harry Reid – and again I’m quoting the Marine Corps – engaged in “pure political posturing on the backs of dead Marines.”

Democrats have a history of being shameful treasonous vermin that goes back nearly fifty years.

This is God damn America, kids.  Not that you godless little punk kids have the moral intelligence or decency to care as you vote for a socialist turd and dance around celebrating America’s humiliation.

I keep saying that the beast of the Book of Revelation is coming.  But there are beasts aplenty already here.  And these beasts are eagerly awaiting the arrival of the Antichrist.

P.S. To his credit, liberal Bob Beckell was outraged by this appalling display of disgusting anti-Americanism on the part of CBS.  Which pretty much means that the other four conservatives on the cast of “The Five” are beginning to get to him.

Obama CIA Director John Brennan: He Was In ‘Evil’ Enhanced Interrogation Up To His Eyeballs, But Is Taking Nuremberg Defense Like All Fascists Before Him

The Senate hearing for Obama-nominee for CIA Director John Brennan is pretty amazing.  It is now an open fact that John Brennan was intimately involved with enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding and certainly could have spoken out about it.  The man actually is on the record as having acknowledged that these techniques were valuable and saved American lives.

WASHINGTON  (AP) — A Senate hearing on John  Brennan‘s nomination to head the CIA could lay bare some parts of the secret  war against al-Qaida:  lethal drone strikes from covert bases against even American terror suspects,  harsh interrogation methods and long detention of suspects without due  process.

Some  of the practices produced revulsion among some in Congress and the public, but  the outcry has been muted because Brennan and others say that these harsh and  secretive methods have saved American lives.

Democrats are in a bind: do they renounce waterboarding by voting John Brennan down and denouncing him as a Nazi, or do they vote to appoint him because that’s what Pharaoh-Messiah-in-Chief Obama wants them to do?

Turns out – as is always so given the nature of fascism – that there’s a “third way” (see also here).

John Brennan – who is again on the record praising the EIT program – now says that in public he supported it but in private he opposed it.

He was only carrying out the orders of the evil Bush.

Which is of course the Nuremberg Defense, with the only difference being the names “Hitler ordered it” with “Bush ordered it.”

Democrats, of course, say that is wonderful.  Blame Bush while at the same time vote to confirm the guy who was carrying out the Bush policy.

It’s too bad Heinrich Himmler took that cyanide rather than face his trial.  If he could have held out with a few lengthy ACLU appeals, today’s Democrats never would have convicted him.  You can see him now raising his hand in that Nazi salute while taking his oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and then saying, “Mein Führer Bush ordered the killings, and I dutifully carried out the Führer’s orders.  But in my heart I knew the devil Bush was evil.”

It’s rather obvious why Obama wants this turd to be his CIA chief: John Brennan is the sort of career weasel who has proven that he will say and do anything necessary to please whatever superiors who are over him at any given moment.  He will very clearly make a compliant useful idiot for Obama to rule the CIA through.

After demonizing Gitmo, rendition, domestic eavesdropping, the surge and a host of other Bush era programs, Obama copied them ALL except for waterboarding.  And in most cases went far, FAR beyond anything that Bush did to violate civil liberties and impose American policy on other countries.  Now the cake is complete with Obama’s appointment of a “torturer.”

And given the unending tidal surge of the ocean of abject liberal hypocrisy, Obama gets to eat his cake and have it too.

Democrat Women Who Don’t Demand To Be Forced To Register For The Draft As Front-Line Meat Are Hypocrites And Cowards

Another “I told you so” is in order.

I wrote an article in which I stated that if women had a right to serve in combat, then they therefore had the same duty to serve in front-line combat as every man who has been forced to register for selective service (a.k.a. the draft) has borne.

Well, line up, bitches.  Sacrifice the hiney and shut up the whiny.  Because real men don’t whine.  Strap on that hundred pound combat load and stumble as fast as your little hiney will carry you into that machine gun fire way over there in the yonder distance.  And keed doing it day after day and every damn bit as well as all the men around you, because if you fall short your fellow troops are going to die because you were too damn weak to be there.  And you clearly think you’re just as man as the rest of we the testicled ones or you wouldn’t be there.

All young men have an obligation to sign up for front-line combat if they’re called to serve.  Now all women do, too.

You want equal opportunity, do you?  Well, here it is.  Not that liberal women have the integrity to actually ASK for actual equality.  Because liberal women DON’T want “equality”; they want “entitlement” masquerading as “equality.”

And that is because the core defining essence of every liberal is abject moral hypocrisy.  Liberalism means picking out only the most self-serving elements of “equality” and leaving the rest for those who don’t vote for Obama.  Women get to choose to kill their children; men are compelled by force of law to stand by helplessly while his kid is tortured and murdered.  And if a woman chooses to keep a baby which was by definition not a “baby” the last time the sperm donor that used to be called a “father” had anything to do with the pregnancy process, men are forced to support a child they had no choice to have until that kid is over 18.  Women get to “choose” to enter whatever part of the military they want and have a RIGHT to it; men get to be forcibly compelled to serve in the most brutal combat duty whether they want to or not in time of the draft that every man in America must forcibly register to participate in.

Why such a massive and self-referentially dishonest and hypocritical double-standard?  Because women overwhelmingly vote Democrat and men overwhelmingly vote Republican.  And Democrats are just that cynical and evil.  Period.

You voted for it, girls.  You voted for Obama and Obama issued his imperial order as pharaoh over all the land via his proxy.  Now man up and put your lives on the line, honeys.  The least you can do is for once in your whiny life quit thinking “entitlement” and start thinking “duty.”  Because if you should have a right to fight on the front lines, then you damn well have the same duty as the men you so stupidly and wickedly think you are.

It’s really quite funny.  Now the same liberals who most supported allowing women with “the right to choose to serve in combat” are saying the selective service registration requirement is outdated and ought to be thrown out.  Lest women realize that Obama’s “right” just viciously screwed them right up the whazoo and start voting for the party that actually represents women and families.

But they sure as hell weren’t saying that when they were introducing bills just a few years ago when Bush was president to not just bolster selective service, but to literally reinstitute the damn DRAFT:

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Rep. Charles Rangel introduced a bill in Congress Tuesday to reinstate the military draft, saying fighting forces should more closely reflect the economic makeup of the nation.

The New York Democrat told reporters his goal is two-fold: to jolt Americans into realizing the import of a possible unilateral strike against Iraq, which he opposes, and “to make it clear that if there were a war, there would be more equitable representation of people making sacrifices.”

“I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that’s involved, the sacrifice that’s involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility,” Rangel said.

“Those who love this country have a patriotic obligation to defend this country,” Rangel said. “For those who say the poor fight better, I say give the rich a chance.”

Now, liberal, you can agree with me that liberals are so cynical and so depraved that they would literally exploit one of the most sacred obligations ever imposed on Americans to rise up for the good of their nation and fight for it in time of war and if necessary DIE for it as a device to hurt or embarrass George W. Bush.  Hundreds of thousands of the most honored Americans literally left their dead and broken bodies on battlefields across the globe so that Democrats could one day use their sacrifice as a cynical partisan political attempt to demagogically attack Republicans.  Or you can agree with me that women be immediately required to register for front-line combat duty to befit the new status of “right” that Obama just bequeathed you.  Until that “right” is taken away and replaced by common sense.

Do you know which president was the last one to try to call for a forced draft?

Jimmy Carter, Democrat:

Americans have not always been against reinstituting the draft, which was stopped in 1973. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter discussed the possibility of resurrecting the draft and reinstituted the Selective Service registration requirement for young men following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. At that time, a majority of Americans favored reinstituting the draft. Support had dropped below the majority level by the summer of 1981, after Ronald Reagan had defeated Carter in his re-election bid.

You not only get to see that Jimmy Carter openly called for resurrecting the draft and forcing young men to serve, but he was the very man who reinstituted the Selective Service requirement that Democrats are now poo-pooing.

Because to be a Democrat is to be the lowest form of hypocrite.  And “Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic Bureaucrat.”

Now, I’m not actually dumb enough to believe that Democrats will show integrity for the first time in their parasitic leech lives and actually be consistent.  They won’t require women to register for Selective Service because, again, women would turn on them in droves the next election and vote for a party and a president who decries this moral idiocy as the evil that it is.

Instead, let me tell you what WILL happen.  Right now, today, in granting this “right,” Democrats are assuring us that of course, we won’t reduce our physical standards to accommodate female infantry recruits.

That’s what Canada said, too.

Back when I was serving, I read an article in the Army Times about Canada opening up infantry service to women.  All they had to do was go through the same boot camp that men had to go through.

Do you know what happened?  No woman could make it through the training.  Female Olympic athletes tried to make it through the training.  And not one could pass muster.

Because they aren’t the one thing they needed to be: MEN.

But it turns out that Canadian liberals are every bit as dishonest as American liberals.  Because you want to see what became of that promise from Canadian liberals?

Military drops fitness test for new recruits Last Updated: Thursday, October 26, 2006 | 9:03 AM ET CBC News

Canada’s military has dropped its physical fitness requirement for new recruits, saying it will take responsibility for whipping prospective soldiers into shape.

A notice posted on the Canadian Forces recruitment website says that effective Oct. 1, 2006, the physical fitness test is eliminated from the selection process.

“The Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School will be responsible for assessing physical fitness and will implement a program to assist new enrollees to reach an acceptable level of physical fitness prior to commencing basic training,” says the notice.

To meet basic minimum requirements, people wanting to join the forces must have Canadian citizenship, be at least 17 years old and have completed Grade 10.

The change comes amid confusion surrounding suggestions that members of the Air Force or Navy could be called on to serve in combat roles on the ground in Afghanistan, where Canadian troops will be until 2009. Rotating deployments of roughly 2,000 have been in the country for the past four years.

Democrats have loathed the military ever since they voted for the president who stated that he personally was “loathing the military” when he was writing a letter to weasel out of HIS Selective Service requirement.  To whatever extent that we can’t say that they want to actively want to destroy the American military, they don’t give one damn about its quality or its capability.  It is nothing more than a social engineering ground for them.  And shame on them for it.

That’s how you know that in the not very distant future, we will be waiving our physical fitness requirement.  Because our military ultimately shouldn’t be one iota stronger than the very weakest woman who wants to exercise her “right to choose.”

It is a costly, time-intensive job to train infantry recruits.  We can’t afford to let thousands of women fail and flail away to the tune of millions of dollars.  Especially after Obama has gutted military funding past the breaking point as it is.

We’re going to dumb-down our requirements so that morally stupid women can ruin the American military.

That’s what’s actually going to happen.

If a man doesn’t register for Selective Service at age 18, he spends the rest of his life suffering for his “choice.”  He will not be able to participate in any federal benefit, including student loans or home mortgages, as a result.  And men can never go back and retroactively register.  They continue to bear that burden for the rest of their lives and there is nothing they can do to undo their failure to register.

I hereby demand, in this age of Obama, that all women be forcibly required to register for Selective Service with the same possibility of front-line combat that men have had to endure.

After all, you have a “right.”  And you should have a right to die horribly as a result.

And by the way, welcome to God damn America, ladies.  Except you hypocrite Democrat women who won’t join with me in calling that girls should have the same duty to die on a battlefield that the men all around you have had since this nation was formed.

You need to understand this, women: liberal feminists have opened the floodgates of front-line combat service to you.  And in doing so, they have exposed you to the same DUTY that men have held throughout history.

And it is hypocritical in the extreme for women to say that they should get all the “rights” of this front-line combat as individual women but none of the duties incumbent upon women as a class.

Yesterday I wrote an article that basically asks the question, “How did it come to this?”  How did America so wildly fail and what caused it to collapse?

This is part of that answer.  We collapsed because there was a group of despicable liberals who literally hamstrung our military so that we could not fight.  First they gutted the military such that it lost the capability of fighting two wars simultaneously that it had held since World War II.  And then it first imposed homosexuality and then imposed physically comparatively weak women into direct combat roles that only a true fool would send them into.

Another factoid is that under Obama, the debt that he demonized Bush for accumulating is so-out-of-control that it is simply beyond unreal.

But day-by-day in this age of God damn America, we are seeing our national demise and the demise of Western civilization clearly spelled out for us.

Katie Petronio, a female Marine captain, nailed it in her article, “Get Over It!”  She points out that it is NOT female Marines – either officer or enlisted – who demanded this “right” to serve in front-line infantry combat.  This agenda is being foisted upon them largely by radical feminists who aren’t serving and frankly have no intention of EVER serving.  Captain Petronio points out that she scored a 292 out of 300 on the Marine Physical Fitness Test for females.  If there is a woman who can “do anything a man can do,” Captain Petronio is that woman.  But in fact what happened was that she testifies that she was unable to perform like a man: her body broke down and she suffered severe muscular deterioration because her body didn’t produce the male hormones that enabled men to keep coming back at the job day after day after day; she would stumble and fall frequently; her lack of comparative agility and mobility put her and her unit in jeopardy.  She pointed out that her inability to perform as a man would have been able to perform affected her unit’s response time and overall capability.  She points out that as a result of her marked physical deterioration which was far more than the men experienced, she suffered polycistic ovarian syndrome which rendered her permanently infertile.  And she said that – quote – “there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement.”

Again, we the testicled ones don’t have this happen to us.  It’s part of having testicles.  It’s not that women aren’t as brave, etc.  It is that they simply don’t have the physical package that God equipped men with.

And liberal feminists HATE God for that.

You need to understand this: liberals do not give one flying damn about women and they don’t give one flying damn about the military.  Their ideology, their worldview, leaves liberals hostile to reality or to the Truth and incapable of understanding how insane or dangerous their “solutions” in fact are.

Just as I was saying from my own perspective.

For convenience sake, here’s the article I wrote back in December before Obama fundamentally transformed America again with his latest outrage of giving women the right to fight if they wanted to in addition to their being given the right to murder their own child if they wanted to:

When Liberals Demand That Women Be Allowed Into Combat, They Are Actually Demanding That Women Ultimately Be Drafted As Machine Gun-Fodder

If I lived my life with the philosophy, “Whatever the Los Angeles Times says, I’ll believe the exact opposite,” I would live a good and wise life.

From the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times:

Women in combat — it’s time U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up. December 3, 2012

When politicians pay tribute to members of the U.S. armed forces, they almost always refer to our “brave men and women,” a recognition of the fact that women now constitute 14.5% of the nation’s 1.4 million active-duty military personnel. But even though women are permitted to serve, the nature of their service is limited because Defense Department regulations exclude them from most combat positions, a policy that primarily affects the Army and Marine Corps.

That would change if four servicewomen who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan are successful in challenging the Pentagon policy. Their lawsuit, filed last week in federal court in San Francisco, persuasively argues that regulations barring women from combat violate their constitutional rights. The current version of the policy, with minor changes, dates to a memorandum in 1994 from then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin that barred women from units whose primary mission was to engage in “direct combat on the ground.” The directive also allowed for the exclusion of women from assignments “where job-related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members.”

Women seeking to rise in the ranks of the military find themselves in a paradoxical position. On the one hand, they are excluded from an array of combat positions that can be crucial to advancement. On the other, they find themselves in danger anyway because the military engages in legal fictions such as saying that a female soldier is “attached” but not “assigned” to a ground combat unit.

For example, one of the plaintiffs, Capt. Zoe Bedell, graduated at the top of her Marine Corps officer candidates class. In Afghanistan, she oversaw “female engagement teams” that accompanied male infantry units into the field. “My Marines supported infantry units,” said Bedell, who is now a reservist. “They patrolled every day. They wore the same gear. They carried the same rifles. And when my Marines were attacked, they fought back.”

In asking the courts to strike down the Pentagon regulations, the plaintiffs aren’t proposing that the military compromise its physical requirements for service in combat or sacrifice readiness on the altar of sexual equality. They are not arguing that women shouldn’t meet the same standards as men. But today’s blanket exclusion makes it impossible for a woman to demonstrate that she possesses the necessary skills.

One argument that has been made against allowing women in combat is that they supposedly don’t have the necessary strength and mental toughness to serve. Another is that the presence of women in a combat operation might undermine “unit cohesion.” (The same argument was made about gays in the military.) During this year’s Republican presidential primary campaign, former Sen. Rick Santorum said that if women were to take part in combat, their male comrades might neglect the mission because of “the natural instinct to protect someone that’s a female.” It also has been argued that integrating combat units poses logistical difficulties such as the need for separate bathrooms; yet such concerns haven’t prevented women from being placed in the thick of combat operations as part of female engagement teams.

Given the flimsiness of these arguments, the plaintiffs are on solid ground in contending that the exclusion policy fails the Supreme Court’s requirement that laws treating the sexes differently must have an “exceedingly persuasive justification” substantially related to “important governmental objectives.” That test was laid out by the court in a 1996 ruling in which it ordered the Virginia Military Institute to admit women. Less encouraging for the plaintiffs is a 1981 decision in which the court upheld the constitutionality of a law authorizing a male-only standby military draft. But in that case the provision to which the court extended deference was an act of Congress, not a policy of the executive branch.

Even if it is ultimately successful, the servicewomen’s lawsuit could take years to change the status of women in the military. A swifter and surer way to end the injustice they complain of is for the Pentagon or Congress to repeal the current policy. Women are serving — and dying — in war zones. It’s time the rules caught up to that reality.

“U.S. servicewomen are already serving in war zones. Pentagon policy needs to catch up,” we’re told.  Of course, women are already being raped, too.  So let’s apply the identical logic and make rape the law of the land.  That is about all I have to say in direct comment on this idiotic article.  Because that is basically their argument: since there have been women who have ended up in combat, we should open the floodgates to women in combat.  Again, don’t do with rape what liberals want to do with women getting blown apart on a battlefield.

This is what is being decided in some court with some idiot judge dictating I mean presiding: are women the numeric identical of men such that whatever a man is able to do a woman ought to be able to do?  And liberals say of course.  Which means all women should pee into a urinal (they DO use less water, after all!) standing up.

If women should have the right to serve in front-line combat, women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in front line combat.  Because we are a nation that has never legally banned the draft and that method of filling the ranks in time of war is still available.  It’s called “selective service” and somehow only young men are able to sign up so they can be called up to run into some future meatgrinder.  And as we look back into our draft history and realize that men were forcibly compelled to join the military, get their heads shaved, and then wear a hundred pound ruck into battle while going over the top to charge machine guns, we come to a grisly question: why not women, too?

Because women can do anything a man can do.  Including get blown to bits.

It doesn’t matter if women can’t physically carry that damn ruck, I suppose.  Details like that simply don’t matter to liberals.

Liberal women can bench press more than the 1,070 lbs of a man just because they believe in the rightness of their ideology.

When I was serving in the army, I heard that Canada did it right.  They had liberals demanding women in the infantry in those days; so what they did was issue a regulation that ANY woman who could pass men’s boot camp could serve in the infantry.  And not one woman ever passed that bar in spite of the fact that female Olympic athletes tried repeatedly to do it.

Liberals are a truly and astonishingly stupid breed: they say that women can do anything a man can do as long as women are never actually EVER required to so much as TRY to do what men have to do.

There was an infamous episode in which male firefighters secretly recorded female firefighter candidates comically trying to raise a ladder.  The outrage wasn’t that female firefighters can’t raise a damn ladder and they most definitely can’t carry somebody out of a high-rise apartment to save a life; no, the outrage was how dare these awful men show up women?  And the male firefighters were reprimanded for revealing the TRUTH and the truth was deemed irrelevant.

Now they have requirements that are 30% of what they used to be for firefighter applicants.  So women can be firefighters, too.  And who cares if the best people don’t get to do the job, or that people die because females simply aren’t physically strong enough to carry an unconscious victim to safety?  Who cares if they can’t break the door down and that therefore you and your family will burn to death or die by smoke inhalation?

It doesn’t matter if it’s a giant government boondoggle that sucks up massive taxpayer dollars.  Liberals eat government waste up like the pigs they are.

My primary care doctor is a woman and she is one of the best doctors I’ve ever had.  But that lady has no damn business rushing machine gun nests.

Men and women are different.  Anybody but a fool knows that.  Which is why liberals don’t know it.

Again, liberal feminists are right now fighting for the right for future mothers and daughters to be forcibly compelled to hurl their bodies into the path of machine guns.  Because if they CAN fight, why is it that only men should be drafted and forced to fight?  If this ruling goes the way the left wants it to, why shouldn’t women be forcibly drafted just like men have been the next time we need a draft???

If this lawsuit carries and women are allowed to serve in combat, then women ought to be COMPELLED to serve in combat.  ALL women should register for selective service (“the draft”) just like all healthy men are required to register.  That’s what is at stake here.

There are things that women do every bit as well as men.  Fighting isn’t one of them.  Which is why when you see the mixed martial arts on TV, you don’t see women on top pounding the crap out of some helpless man.  I’ve been in courtrooms as a juror where some lowlife a-hole pile of slime scumbag beat up a woman with the “it was a fair fight” argument.  No it wasn’t, you roach; you were a poor miserable excuse of a man beating the crap out of a woman who didn’t have the strength to fight you.  But again, reality doesn’t matter to the left; political correctness trumps reality a thousand times out of a thousand.

What is going on is another giant step down “God damn America.”  Because it is a fundamental perversion of the God-created and God-ordained difference between males and females.

Men and women are NOT exchangeable or interchangeable.  And the liberal perversion of the roles of men and women is at the heart of what St. Paul was talking about when he described a society going down the moral dregs.

Canada and other secular humanist nations have embraced women in combat with severely dumbed-down standards to accommodate this “fundamental transformation” of the entire history of warfare.

Here’s the thing: the freedom-loving world doesn’t depend on Canada to secure the peace of the world the way it depends on America.

But now that America is merely one nation among many others, I suppose it doesn’t matter if we hamstring ourselves to our very lowest common denominator for the sake of political correctness.

Many historians credit King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans as having saved Western Civilization at the Battle of Thermopylae so that some day we could emerge as democratic republics.  They fought to the death to give the Greeks a few vital days to prepare for an army of some one million Persians who were bent on annihilating Western Civilization for good.  You’ve kind of got to wonder what would have happened had his “300″ been a bunch of women.

As Obama allows the descendants of those same Persians nuclear weapons and the ballistic missile to deliver them, I guess we’ll ultimately get to find out.

Update, April 2, 2013: I had an excellent idea in honor of the fact that men and women are completely equal and interchangeable (apparently especially as spouses, given the adoration of homosexual marriage): let’s just say that women ARE equal to men and actually put it into practice.

For the record, marriage USED to be the ultimate symbol of equality: one man and one woman united in the bond of marriage and becoming one flesh.  That is, until liberals shot marriage in the head by “fundamentally transforming it” into an institution of sanctified sodomy.

Title IX?  We don’t need that any more.  In fact, we don’t need “men’s” or “women’s” sports at ALL!  Let’s just – from high school on up (and you can start earlier if you’d like) – integrate boys and girls and men and women in the SAME sports.  If women can’t hack playing with men, they don’t deserve to play at all, given that women are men’s equal in every way and all.  And the same is true, of course, for professional sports.  We don’t need a “WNBA” for basketball or a “LPGA” for golf or a “WTA” for tennis.  Women shouldn’t have their own league to play soccer or softball or anything else.  They should compete fairly and squarely with the big boys.

It’s actually funny, when you stop and think about it: the only reason women are able to play sports is because it has been officially acknowledged that not only are women not the same as men, but that they are nowhere NEAR the same.  And it would be insane to suggest otherwise.   I think I saw that only seven women in college basketball have EVER slam dunked a basketball during a game; and only one woman has dunked a ball twice in a single game.  That’s probably just as true for men, right?

If we’re going to dictate that women are as good as men in something as life-or-death important as war and combat, we ought to let women put their money where their mouths are in sports, shouldn’t we?

The reason you can have “women in combat” and “women’s sports” is because liberals are hypocrites to the cores of their shriveled little holes where their souls should have been.

 

Just ONE Of The Armageddons The Failed Obama Presidency Has Given America: North Korea Can Strike America With Nukes Now

I saw Megan Kelly interviewing an expert in the Far East on North Korea.

He pointed out that just two years ago Obama’s Defense Secretary stooge was saying that North Korea wouldn’t be able to strike us with nuclear weapons for five years yet.

And sure enough, that’s what Obama’s Secretary of Defense said back in January 12, 2011 - just two years ago:

BEIJING — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned Tuesday that North Korea was within five years of being able to strike the continental United States with an intercontinental ballistic missile, and said that, combined with its expanding nuclear program, the country “is becoming a direct threat to the United States.”

Mr. Gates is a former director of the C.I.A., and his statement, officials said, reflected both a new assessment by American intelligence officials and his own concern that Washington had consistently underestimated the pace at which the North was developing nuclear and missile technologies.

And the same expert who reminded us of that fact pointed out that if you can put a satellite into orbit, you can strike any damn place on earth.

And North Korea under the Obama regime did precisely that.  And is about to stick its thumb in America’s eye with further nuclear tests.

It’s funny.  I vividly recall Obama mocking and attacking George W. Bush’s policy on North Korea.  Because Obama clearly didn’t believe Bush was failing enough and thought he could fail bigger and faster than Bush could ever dream of failing.

But Obama has also given America a fun new game to play.  Remember “The Lady Or The Tiger?”  Obama’s version is “The Tiger Or The Bigger Tiger.”

I warned you repeatedly that Obama would preside over a nuclear-armed Iran.  I pointed out the DOCUMENTED HISTORIC FACT to you that the Democrats mocked and attacked George W. Bush for declaring that Iran was a nuclear threat.

And of course, with the Obama-regime enabled Iran already having built 24 nukes, well, they’re pretty damn nuclear – in stark contrast to the demon-possessed bureaucrats who make up the DemoCrat Party.

So do you prefer being nuked by the psychotic Allah fanatics in Iran or the psychotic atheist fanatics in North Korea?

I love all the possibilities the Obama regime is giving us.

When Iran decides to assemble its nukes – because it already has an arsenal that it could assemble within weeks at any point in time – it will be able to blockade the Strait of Hormuz with absolute impunity and drive up gasoline to $15 a gallon unless we want to face several of our cities destroyed with nuclear weapons.  It will be able to launch wave after wave of global jihad against the West with impunity for the same reason.  And it will be able to assemble a coalition to attack Israel with impunity for the same reason.

If our “chickens havn’t already come home to roost” in Obama’s God Damn America, it surely will on that day.

In a sick, twisted way, it is a “blessing” that Obama was reelected.  Because the disasters that are coming because of Obama’s first four years of failed and dishonest leadership will be impossible for him to demagogue to the shoulders of George W. Bush or anybody else.

Obama: A Decade Of War Ending (We Have Peace In Our Time, Part Deux)

“A decade of war is now ending,” Obama says.

That’s what happens when you surrender/cut and run.  It’s the chutzpah of the cutter-and-runner in chief to decree a humiliation as a great victory.

A decade of war is now ending.  Unfortunately a new century of war has been started against us.

“A decade of war is now ending and an economic recovery has begun,” Obama says.

And war is peace, and freedom is slavery, and just so you know, ignorance is strength, too.

Our economy is going nowhere.  Obama believes that if he taxes growth and prosperity he’ll somehow get more growth and more prosperity when in non-insane reality we’ll get less of both.  Obama has spent the last four – going on five – years blaming everybody and everything else but himself and his failed policies.

Jan 21, 12:07 PM EST
Obama says decade of war ending

WASHINGTON     (AP) — President Barack Obama says that a decade of war is now ending and an economic recovery has begun.

America’s possibilities are limitless, the president said in his inaugural address. He said we will seize this moment if we seize it together.

Obama said that America can’t succeed when only a few at the top do well and a growing many can barely make it. The country’s prosperity must rest on a rising middle class, he said.

Obama spoke after taking the public oath of office Monday for his second term.

George W. Bush won the war in Iraq and settled the status of forces agreement before leaving office.  Obama demonized George Bush’s successful war-winning surge strategy only to copy it in a war that George Bush had the sense to know America couldn’t win – which was why he kept it a largely special forces mission.

I’ve made this point a number of times before (see here for one back in October 2009 when I predicted Obama would fail just as he is in fact failing): for all the hate Democrats poured on Bush for taking out Saddam Hussein after the dictator had done about 20,000 stupid and confrontational things too many, Iraq was a perfect place for America to take its stand against the war on terror.  The country was largely flat, allowing our full military arsenal to maneuver and dominate.  The people were educated, allowing us to establish a viable government.  And the country of Iraq was secular, allowing us to at least have a damn chance to hand power over to Arabs who actually WEREN’T jihadist terrorists.

What was that phrase I used back in 2009?  Oh, yes, here it is:

In demanding that Afghanistan be the central front, Democrats – and in particular Barack Obama – may well have chosen a war that we can’t win.

Barack Obama thought all that victory stuff was bad, apparently because the man has a genuine problem with America actually winning something.  So let’s massively escalate a war that we can’t win, humiliate ourselves by cutting and running and declare it a job well done for mass political consumption.

Instead, Obama determined to launch a crusade in a mountainous and cave-ridden hellhole of utterly ignorant religious fanatics.  Obama said, “Let’s go to the graveyard of empires, instead.  Because yes we can!”

And within six months of “the war ending” the Taliban will have made all the sacrifices of American lives and treasure absolutely worthless.  Because they will move right back in and take over.  Just as the people who had a freaking clue told you would happen.

So the Iraq War that we won is evil but the Afghanistan War that Obama lost is good.  Because we held George W. Bush to a standard higher than victory and under Obama a withdrawal is terrific because “a decade of war is ending,” after all.

Why did I allude to the infamous statement, “We have peace in our time”???

Neville Chamberlain almost ended Western Civilization with his secular humanist liberal progressive cowardice.  He gave up Europe to Hitler the same way Obama is now giving up the Middle East to Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  The thing that the two miserable turds of history have in common was that each was a fascist dictator in domestic matters, but an appeasing weakling on foreign affairs.  Chamberlain thought he could appease his way to peace.  Obama, even more stupidly, believes he can withdraw his way to peace.  He’s already withdrawn out of Egypt and given the best Arab friend of both Israel and America away to terrorists.  He’s already given Libya (Benghazi) over to terrorists after causing the first ambassador to be murdered since the failed Carter years in the 1970s.  He’s given up in Yemen.  He’s given up in Algeria where all the hostages the terrorists took were all murdered.  He’s given up throughout North Africa.  He’s already giving up damn near anywhere where there’s a crisis.  Including Iran, where Democrats went from mocking George W. Bush for believing that Iran was becoming a nuclear threat to Iran becoming a nuclear power under Obama’s watch.

If anything, Chamberlain was wiser.

But that’s what we get for voting for God Damn America.

A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 19-20

Part One – A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 1-3

Part Two – A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 4-5

Part Three: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 6-7

Part Four: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 8-9

Part Five: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 10-11

Part Six: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 12-13

Part Seven: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 14-15

Part Eight: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 16-18

Rev 19 presents the stark contrast of two feasts, two responses and two rewards representing the fruits of two worldviews.  On one worldview, you are preparing for the most anticipated and blessed feast in history: the marriage supper of the Lamb; you have a spontaneous thunder of praise and adoration for the Messiah who made your attendance at that Millennium Kingdom feast possible; and you have the reward of a dazzling white robe as Jesus’ worshipers enter their new heavenly forever.  Representing the fruits of the other worldview is a grotesque feast of vultures feeding on the flesh of armies united against God (Rev 19:18); you have a hail of bullets, missiles and curses hurled at Jesus as He returns as King of kings and Lord of lords; and you have a river of blood and hundreds of millions of souls bound for hell to join the billions waiting for their sentence.  For sheer drama, it doesn’t get any better than that!

In terms of chronology, ch. 19 picks up where ch. 16 left off.  Recall that we saw hundreds of millions of demonized troops deployed along a battle line from Turkey to the Sinai Peninsula and attacking one another in a war of total annihilation.  Hundred pound hailstones are slamming into the earth, and most of the great cities on earth are leveled as the greatest earthquake in the history of the human race tears across the planet.  Jesus said if these days went on not one human being would be left alive (Matt 24:21-22).  As utterly hopeless as things look on earth, God is actually about to end the problem of human suffering.

In the eyes of unbelieving mankind, God is denounced as unreal until His existence is past undeniable; then He is blasphemed as unfair.  When sinful man suffers the just consequences of rejecting God’s grace and forgiveness through His Lamb, they will call Him unjust no matter how many times He was warned them.  This willful blindness and hardness of heart is seen in Rev 9:20, 21 and 16:21.  Contrast this with the attitude expressed in the fivefold hallelujahs as Christ prepares to return to earth as King of kings.  Rather than being unfair or unjust, Christ’s judgment is true and just (19:2).  As J. Vernon McGee put it, “You might have a better plan than God, but what you don’t have is your own universe.” Since Christ assumed a human nature so He could share in all the experience of humanity, and since Christ literally accepted the blame for every sin of every sinner who would confess His need for Christ’s free gift of salvation, Christ more than has the right to now judge the world who instead spat in His face.

Rev 19:7-10 presents the raptured Church as the bride who has made herself ready.  If we men don’t love the analogy as much as women, remember that we’ll all be like the angels in heaven (Mark 12:25); there’s no sexual context.  In heaven, ALL believers will be one in submitting to Christ – and resurrection believers will be united in their submission to Christ (Eph 5:22-24), NOT in “femininity.”  We’ll be dressed in the “fine linen, bright and clean” which will be made according to our “righteous acts” (19:8).  The lavishness of this robe will be determined by what we did on earth; we’re literally weaving our heavenly garment this very moment!  They may be elaborately studded with gold and silver and precious stones or they may smell like smoke from all the wood, hay and straw of our unspiritual lives on earth (1 Cor 3:10-15).  It’s all up to YOU.  But there is simply no question that God rewards us for our righteousness that comes from living our lives in faith and acting out that faith in our attitudes/conduct.

Here’s a good question: when does the wedding feast of the Lamb occur?  Jesus Himself tells us that He won’t drink wine with His disciples until He drinks it with us in His Father’s Kingdom (Matt 26:29).  And when is that?  At the beginning of the Millennium after the battle of Armageddon and the separation of the sheep and the goats (Matt 25:31ff).  I believe the Old Testament saints (who will be resurrected at the end of the Tribulation cf. Dan 12:2) will join Tribulation martyrs (Rev 20:4) as well as Raptured believers at this feast.  The guests of honor will be those Tribulation saints who survived.  Had you asked me prior to my study of this chapter, I would have confidently told you that this feast occurred in Heaven during the Tribulation.  But think of all the great company we’d miss out on if that were true!

John is so overwhelmed by all the glory he sees that he falls down before the angel – whom we were told in 18:1 “had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor” – who tells him to knock that junk off right away.  Because only God is EVER to be worshiped.  And THAT’S how we can know that Christ is no angel and no created being of ANY kind, but our Savior, our Lord, our God, and our Creator.  As beautiful and majestic as the angels are, Jesus is as superior to them (Heb 1:3-4) as He is to all of His creation (John 1:1-3,10, Colossians 1:16) which He also sustains (Heb 1:3) and holds together (Col 1:17).

If you want to shock yourself, enter the question in your search engine, “Will Jesus physically return to earth?” and note all the preterists who call themselves “Christians” who deny that He will.  They make Jesus out to be a liar (e.g. Matt 24:30).  Heb 9:28 assures us that Christ “WILL appear a second time.”  When Jesus Ascended, His disciples stood gawking up at Him as He was physically taken up to heaven until an angel appeared and told them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).  We’re assured that Christ will first set foot on the Mount of Olives when He returns to earth (Zechariah 14:4-8).  Which btw is exactly where the disciples were standing when the angel told them to quit gawking at Jesus (Acts 1:12)!  And if all that isn’t clear enough, Rev 19 most certainly is.  And Jesus doesn’t just physically return to earth, He physically wipes out His enemies.  Jesus fulfills Isaiah 63:1-4 in singlehandedly destroying His enemies.  Our robes will be white (19:14); His will be red from treading the winepress (Isa 63:2-3 cf. Rev 19:15).  And so we say “buh-bye” to Antichrist and the false prophet.

So why is Satan bound for a thousand years only to be released in Rev. 20?  Just as God gives sinful man his chance to “have it his own way” in order to reveal in history that man simply cannot make it without Jesus Christ, so also does God give the human race in the Millennial Kingdom this “opportunity” to turn their backs on Jesus.  By releasing Satan, God demonstrates in human history that as long as man has a choice – even with Christ physically ruling over him in Jerusalem – sinful man will always choose evil.  Sin is not the unfortunate result of poverty or our environment; it is the result of our fallen nature apart from Christ.  And so even the Millennium Kingdom – as idyllic as it is compared with the world Christ just saved at the end of the Tribulation – is not ultimately adequate.  We need the ultimate state of heaven where God will confirm us in our righteousness and where no Satan can ever tread.  That’s why.

Again, marvel at the silliness of people who call themselves “Christians.”  SIX TIMES in Rev 20 we are told that this literal kingdom on earth will last for one thousand years.  In Latin, “mille” means “one thousand” and “annum” means, “year.”  One thousand years.  Did God promise such an earthly Kingdom?  Yes, repeatedly to His people the Jews.  The very heart of the Old Testament prophetic message is the coming of Messiah to set up an earthly kingdom over which He would rule from the throne of David in Jerusalem.  Will God fulfill His promises literally?  Yes, just as He always has before.  When God said Messiah would be born of a virgin, He was born of a virgin.  When God said Messiah would physically suffer and die, He physically suffered and died.  And when God says that Messiah would rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years, He will rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years.  In Acts 1:6 Jesus’ disciples asked if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel now.  Why would they have asked this if Jesus was NOT going to restore the kingdom to Israel?  Remember the Road to Emmaus (see Luke 24:27) where Jesus explained everything to the disciples?  That had already happened forty days BEFORE Acts 1:6; and Luke and Acts were both written by Luke to demonstrate that continuity.  But more importantly, why wouldn’t Christ have not corrected them and explained that they had it all wrong and there would never be such a kingdom for Israel to begin with?  This is not rocket science.  And yet it seemingly would be easier for some people to build a rocket ship and land it safely on the surface of the sun than to figure out that “a thousand years” means “a thousand years.”

So Satan is bound for how long?  A thousand years (Rev 20:2,3).  Which interestingly corresponds to the time between the revelation through Moses (~1400 BC) and the final OT revelation through Malachi (~400 BC).  The Messianic Kingdom prophesied in the Old Testament is a time of universal righteousness and peace (Isa 11:6-9), but that won’t happen if Satan is allowed to incite man to sin and to follow his base nature and defy God.  Basically, the Tribulation saints – including the 144,000 Jews and their Jewish converts who fled to Petra (see Rev 12:14) – who survive will inherit the Millennial Kingdom.  Every single human being on earth on Day One of the Millennium will be a saved believer.  But they will have children.  During the Millennium human beings will live an incredibly long time (see Isaiah 65:20 and understand that this prophecy makes no sense whatsoever apart from the Millennium Kingdom).  And some of these children will simply harden their hearts against Jesus just as we saw so many others do during the Tribulation.

We have the first resurrection – here composed entirely of believers who were martyred during the Tribulation (Rev 20:4-6).  This resurrection actually completes the fourth of four phases of this “first resurrection.”  Christ was the first fruits of this first resurrection (1 Cor 15:20-25).  In phase 2, raptured Christians living and dead received their resurrection bodies (1 Thess 4:13-18) before the Tribulation.  In phase 3 of this first resurrection the Old Testament saints receive their new bodies at the end of the Tribulation before the Millennium so they can see God’s Word to them LITERALLY FULFILLED and they could witness God’s faithfulness in their flesh (see Job 19:25-27).  That btw validates the 40 times the word “resurrection” is used in the New Testament, which is always a bodily resurrection (see John 5:28).

Near the end of the Millennium Satan is loosed and allowed to stir up what will be the very last rebellion in the entire history of the human race.  God will destroy it and throw Satan into hell for all eternity.

The second resurrection (Rev 20:11-15) consists ONLY in those whose names had not been written in the Book of Life.  They aren’t resurrected prior to the Millennium because they have no part in it and will have no part in anything other than hell.  Jesus – who spoke more about hell than ANYONE – told us there would be a resurrection of life and a resurrection of damnation (see John 5:29).  And it’s going to be at this time that God will respond, “I never knew you” to those who assure Him there must have been some kind of clerical error.  God will open up His Law and demonstrate how they ignored it (Gal 3:10).  And God will open up the Book of Works (Eccles 12:14) and show that they stand condemned as sinners.  And then He will open up the Book of Life and show that at no time did they ever truly accept His Son as Savior (John 3:18).  The entire meaning of life consists in FINDING life in the Son of God.

Part Ten: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 21-22

Passing Of A True Hero: Gen. ‘Stormin’ Norman’ Schwarzkopf Dead At 78. It’s Probably Good He Didn’t Live To See What Obama Does To The US Military.

A great man died yesterday.  And we’ll probably never see his like again.

Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf died from complications of pneumonia after a long illness at his home in Tampa, where he lived in retirement after refusing to exploit his fame to enter the immoral and treasonous world of politics.

Given the fact that his death coincides with one of the great acts of pathetic stupidity of all of human history – the fiscal cliff – his decision not to contaminate his love for America with the ultimate cynicism that is politics was clearly a wise one.

When you consider how Obama’s fiscal cliff strategy – because, yes, the sequestration that led to this moment was the product of the Obama White House - will have on the United States military, it is probably a good thing that Stormin’ Norman was saved from having to watch Obama gut his beloved military machine:

“Forward” is a great slogan and everything, but the only way Obama is going to take America “forward” is to drive us off the fiscal cliff that was his bright idea to create in the first place (and see here for more because Obama set this disaster up from the very start).  The fact of the matter is that it is a documented fact by one of the great journalists in American history that the idea for sequestration – i.e. the “fiscal cliff” or “taxmageddon” – came from Obama’s chief of staff Jack Lew and Rob Nabors (Obama’s White House Assistant to the President and head of the White House’s Office of Legislative Affairs).  The money quote:

“At 2:30 p.m. Lew and Nabors went to the Senate to meet with Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone. ‘We have an idea for the trigger,’ Lew said. ‘What’s the idea?’ Reid asked skeptically. ‘Sequestration.’ Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he were going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. ‘A couple of weeks ago,’ he said, ‘my staff said to me that there is one more possible’ enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, ‘Get the hell out of here. That’s insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?’ Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained. What would the impact be? They would design it so that half the threatened cuts would be from the Defense Department. ‘I like that,’ Reid said. ‘That’s good. It doesn’t touch Medicaid or Medicare, does it?’ It actually does touch Medicare, they replied. ‘How does it touch Medicare?’ It depends, they said. There’s versions with 2 percent cuts, and there’s versions with 4 percent cuts.” (Bob Woodward, The Price Of Politics, 2012, pp. 326)

So anybody who wants to assert that sequestration originated ANYWHERE other than the Obama White House is a documented liar.  Not that liberals care about being documented liars.

Jack Lew was Obama’s chief of staff and Rob Nabors was Obama’s Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs.  Lew and Nabors were Obama’s roaches who served Obama’s bidding.  And they first negoiated this fiscal cliff deal with Democrat Harry Reid and his roaches before forcing the House Republicans to sign on or be labelled “obstructionists.”  And so, yes, the fiscal cliff was Obama’s dream that he made come true.

And that destruction of the US military will spread through the entire defense industry, with 2 million more jobs about to fall prey to his savage attack against America.

Obama’s own handpicked Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, warned that Obama’s sequestration would forcibly return America to pre-World War II spending levels.  Which was why the Japanese attacked us.  But Obama has already publicly vowed to veto ANY bill that spared the military.

America will never rise to true might again after this blow which will be even greater than the one Schwarzkopf inflicted on the Iraq military machine.  Which is why I’m glad Stormin’ Norman didn’t have to live to see the new year under the grip of the president of God damn America.

Norman Schwarzkopf was a man who was literally born to serve his nation at the ultimate moment.  He grew up in Iran (his father went there to train Iran’s national police force and served as an adviser to the young Shah, Reza Pahlavi).  And he had the insight to understand that his destiny was tied to that turbulent and violent region.  He had his choice of commands – and many of his alternative possibilities looked better on paper at the time – but he wanted and got the U.S. Central Command – which was responsible for the Middle East.

Gen. Schwarzkopf was a man of vision: he wargamed out the EXACT scenario that in fact took place, as Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait out of lust for that small nation’s wealth and oil resources.

Because of General Schwarzkopf, America did not have to scramble; the commanding general was ready to go the moment Saddam’s thugs violated Kuwait’s borders.

People don’t remember how huge his 100 hour land war truly was.  Liberals, ever wrong, predicted a blood bath as Saddam Hussein prepared for World War One-style trench warfare and promised “the mother of all battles” and his desire to inflict massive casualties on the American-led coalition.  Stormin’ Norman had other plans, and delivered the military equivalent of a vicious punch right to the nose of Saddam’s military – which at that time was the fourth largest military power in the world and which was armed to the teeth with Soviet weaponry.  No one short of God knows how many American and coalition lives Schwarzkopf spared due to his strategic and tactical brilliance.

Schwarzkopf’s character and courage marks a stark contrast with the leaders that mark God damn America today.  And I honor this great man and celebrate his great victory back when the Late Great USA could actually win a damn war.

I can’t take away your loss and grief, Schwarzkopf family.  But I can remind you that your pain ought to be accompanied by a feeling of great pride for a great man.

A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 8-9

See Part One – A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 1-3

Part Two – A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 4-5

Part Three: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 6-7

Last week we saw in Revelation chapter 6 the beginning of God’s divine judgment that only Christ alone was worthy to release.  As Christ opened the first six Seals, we saw that each ushered in a specific judgment from a holy God on a Christ-rejecting world.  We asked in Rev 6:17 with the world experiencing these judgments, “Who is able to stand?”  And chapter seven answered that question: those 144,000 Jews who will be called by the Lord and receive HIS seal on their foreheads (Rev 7:3).  For the record, I would say that Revelation 7 flashes back to the beginning of the Tribulation after the Rapture has occurred.  As we look at Revelation 8 we see Christ opening the seventh Seal which releases another series of seven judgments (the Trumpet judgments (Rev 8-15).

Below is a chart which describes the various Seal, Trumpet and Bowl judgments which gives a basic sense of the effects of each judgment.  I didn’t want to spend this article going through the specific details of each judgment when a picture is worth a thousand words.

God accomplishes these judgments.  There is no question whatsoever that they come from the throne of God.  What is taking place in heaven is every bit as real as what will be taking place on earth.  But we can wonder how God brings these judgments about: for example, is the 2^nd Trumpet judgment of a fiery mountain being thrown into the sea that kills a third of all the fish a supernatural act of God?  Does God create the fiery mountain and hurl it at earth?  Or is it the effect of God merely stepping back and allowing sinful man to do what comes naturally (in this case by launching nuclear weapons on the earth)???  As you look at what unfolds: a third of the earth and trees and grass burned up, a third of the oceans and fish life destroyed, a third of the fresh waters being made toxic, darkness covering the earth, intense heat, etc., it seems very much to me that all of these things are precisely what has been described by scientists if we had a large-scale nuclear war.  Remember that we’ve got the War of God and Magog (Ezekiel 39) to fight in addition to the battle that takes place after the world’s armies gather at Armageddon.

On my view, I believe that man fulfills many of these terrible judgments upon himself as a result of God merely stepping aside.  I offer two reasons: 1) that 67 years ago before the advent of the nuclear age it would have been impossible that these judgments could have been anything other than supernatural acts by God.  Now, with nuclear weapons capable of bringing about what is described in Revelation; with the East literally being able to field an army of 200 million men (Rev 9, 16) when there weren’t 200 million human beings alive on the entire planet when John received this revelation; and things like the Euphrates drying up so this demonic Eastern army can cross it coinciding with a series of dams being built across the Euphrates for the very first time in history – it just strikes me as more than coincidence.  And 2) because on this view man won’t be able to stand before God and say, “Well, we were doing great without You and then You started doing all this awful stuff to us.”  God would be able to respond, “You did all that to YOURSELVES.  YOUR own Antichrist did it to you.”  God would not have wiped out some 2 billion human beings in Rev 9:13-21 after previously wiping out a fourth of all humanity (Rev 6:7-8); He would merely have stepped aside and allowed man to inflict those judgments upon himself.  And doesn’t that message of foolish actions resulting in disastrous consequences jibe well with Proverbs?

That said, another possibility is a super volcano.  We have five of them around the planet – and any ONE of them exploding could end human civilization on earth, according to scientists.  That fiery mountain could be the top of an actual mountain being thrown off its foundation by the blast of the super volcano.  So if you enjoy worshiping nature rather than your Creator, your Creator can give you more nature than you ever dreamed of, can’t He?

The simple truth is that I don’t profess to know precisely how God will fulfill these judgments; I know merely that God is ultimately sovereign over EVERYTHING and that these judgments WILL be fulfilled.  And of course I also very much believe they will be literally fulfilled as people really die and as the skies truly darken over the earth.

This will be a truly terrifying time to be alive.  Assuming that we begin the Tribulation with 7 billion humans, that number will be down to 3.5 billion (HALF!) considering just the judgments described in Rev 6:7-8 and Rev 9:13-21 alone.  And just think of the mass starvation as basically a third of green things perish and a third of the oceans perish.  How much worse can things get than they are now?  A LOT.

We can’t leave without considering the judgments of Revelation with the plagues of Moses in Exodus.  Consider: man gets sores in Rev 16:2 cf. the boils the Egyptians get in Exodus 9:8-12.  The waters became blood in Exodus 7:17-21 and the oceans and rivers become blood in Revelation.  Darkness settles over the earth in Exodus 10:21-23 and darkness settles over the earth in Rev 8:12 (and 16:8-9).  We have locusts described in Exodus 10:21-23 and those pesky locusts come back in Rev 9:13-21 and 16:10-11.  We’ve got an invasion of a giant army of frogs in Exodus 8:2-4 and an invasion from a far deadlier human army in Rev 9:13-21 and 16:12-16.  And we’ve got hail in Exodus 9:18-26 and we’ve got all kinds of hail in Rev 11:15-19 and 16:17-21.  The judgments of the Bowls mirror the judgments of the Trumpets – and very clearly both seem to mirror the judgments of Exodus.

And just why is it that so many Christians understand the plagues of Egypt literally, as having happened exactly as described, and yet refuse to believe that the plagues described in Revelation just likewise might also be fulfilled literally?  That frankly might be the biggest mystery of all.

So let’s turn to Revelation 9.  We start with the fifth Trumpet judgment (and the first woe).  What do we see?  We see what are described as demonic locusts.  And frankly, whether they are actually demon-possessed locusts or whether they are armored attack helicopters (see:
http://www.hellos.com/angelo/revelation/angel5.html
 for example) we end up with the same point: God doesn’t directly inflict this terrible pain on human beings.  He either merely paroled four demons or stepped aside so that demonic helicopter squadrons could attack people with gas or nerve agent that may very well be in our arsenal right now.  2 Peter 2:4-5 points out that God has held some particularly vicious demons since the days of Noah.  And we know that unlike ordinary locusts, which “have no king” (Proverbs 30:27), these locusts – whatever they are – will have a demonic king whose name means “Destroyer.”  We also know that most locusts can’t leave the grass alone.  And as painful as their attack clearly will be, God displays His grace yet again by not allowing them to kill and consign more victims to hell.

Have you ever watched the fun movie Back to the Future?  Let’s say I rode my v-twin motorcycle into the early 17^th century right into a Puritan village wearing my full face helmet and my leathers and my pointy-toed cowboy boots: what would the people have made of me careening around on something that had no legs but ran faster than any horse?  How would they have interpreted me?  And how long do you think it would take them to assemble into a mob to seek to burn me at the stake?  And then you get the sense of the question, “How would the Apostle John have described me given his 1st century understanding of the world?”

In any event, I do NOT want you to get bogged down on whether the creatures seen in Rev 9:1-12 are demonic helicopters or demonic locusts and have your whole world collapse if it’s the other one; because that is simply not the point.  It’s true that we don’t know exactly what these things are; but we have a very detailed description as to what they will do.  And we also have a very good understanding of why they’re doing what they do.  As the song goes, “two out of three aint bad.”  We know that the generation that experiences these things will know all too well what they turn out to be, and we know that this story is NOT “about the future,” but rather it is about Jesus Christ finally and fully overcoming evil and taking His rightful place as King of kings and Lord of lords surrounded by His people.  So don’t get bogged down by what you don’t fully know yet; just be thankful you won’t have to find out what the “locusts” are the hard way!

The sixth Trumpet (and the 2^nd woe) in Rev 9:13-21 is much the same; are these demon-possessed humans or are they an actual demonic army?  The text says, “kings from the east,” plural.  I believe it will be a human army from China and quite probably several of her Eastern allies (such as Pakistan); but I don’t know for sure.  Whatever they are, we again know just what they are doing and we know why they are doing it.  And whether they’re real demons or Chinese communist demons, they’ll going to accomplish the exact same job, won’t they?  We can certainly speculate what kind of army this will be; but let us do so knowing that we’re speculating and realizing that, once again, we’ll be dramatically happier not knowing whether these are humans or demons than will be the poor fools who get caught in this army’s path and get to find out firsthand, won’t we?

In the time we have left, let’s briefly consider the message of Rev 9:20-21.  We find that the unbelievers of the Tribulation are so militant in their unbelief that nothing will soften their hearts or cause them to worship Jesus Christ.  There will simply be no repenting in these people.  And we’re told that their lives will be characterized by demon worship, sorcery (“pharmakia” or heavy drug use), sexual immorality (“porneia” from which we get the word “pornography”), murder and theft.  They just sound like such a nice, special group of people, don’t they?

The Nov 21^st issue of The Desert Sun had an article titled, “Riverside County jails see record early releases: Data reflect depth of Riverside County’s overcrowding crisis.”  It ends with these words:

Nearly two-thirds of those parolees are categorized as “high-risk” offenders, according to the probation department.

That’s higher than the 40 percent of high-risk offenders that the state had projected would be under county care, Riverside County Chief Probation Officer Alan Crogan said in a recent interview.

“We missed the mark,” he said. “Some of them, regretfully, have serious mental health illnesses. That’s another thing that we didn’t realize — the extent of the mental health issues,” Crogan said.

Sheriff Stanley Sniff Jr. has repeatedly warned Riverside County jails, like many of the 58 counties across the state, would be “overwhelmed” by housing felons.

“The system is so overloaded. We’re not close. We’re way, way, behind,” Sniff has said. “That’s what’s added to our misery, when you’re seeing some terrible surges in crime.”

The very fabric of our society is beginning to whirl out of control.  The world you see before you is on the verge of collapse.  Something is coming to fill the vacuum.  He will be the ultimate big government tyrant.  The Bible calls him the beast.

Part Five: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 10-11

Part Six: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 12-13

Part Seven: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 14-15

Part Eight: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 16-18

Part Nine: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 19-20

Part Ten: A Midlevel Flight Across Revelation: Rev 21-22