It APPEARS that, with the help of Kenyan-not-Hawaiian-born Obama and Obamanites of America apparently morphing into the "False Prophet" referred to in Revelation chapters 13 though 20 in the New Testament of the Sacred-66-books [Judeo/Christian] Holy Bible, the Revelation 13:3,12-predicted "mortal wound" [of Rouhani/Khamenei of Iran, apparently morphing into "The Beast" alluded to in Revelation chapters 13 through 20] of economic sanctions has been eliminated as of mid-January 2016.
God's saints therefore look forward to when The Beast will "hate the harlot" [of homosexuals to be executed along with decadent anti-burka/anti-hijab Western exhibitionists of immodesty, and more] mentioned in Revelation 17:16 before worldwide commerce, previously manipulated by the 666-I.D.-tattoo transactions-regulating global system stated in Revelation 13:16-18, is destroyed per the description given in Revelation chapter 18.
The Lord's saints do not, in contrast, relish the thought of ISIS-related persecution from both Beast and False Prophet detailed in Revelation 13:7-10, 15 plus Revelation 14:9-13 and Revelation 20:4.
Be that as it is, and will be, the Lord's prophetic timetable is right on schedule.
Semantics is crucial, and proper semantics go a long way in clearing up confusion.
For example, it is not so much a matter or question of if someone was or is a "naturalized" or even a "natural-born" citizen, in stark contrast to if that person is a "native-born" and not "foreign-born" person.
That, of course, is the big difference between Ted Cruz and Barack Hussein Obama. Cruz admits that he was born in Calgary Alberta Canada (which he indeed was), but Obama will not admit that he was born in Mombasa Kenya (which he was according to info available in both http://layleftlayrite.tripod.com and http://confrontation.faithweb.com and more) but instead pretends and purports that he was born in Hawaii (which he was not).
Endorse Bernie Sanders (not Hillary Clinton) as the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee!
WHO I PLAN TO VOTE FOR PERTAINING TO THE NOV 2016 ELECTION
(1) IF a MALE GOP presidential nominee/candidate (be he Huckabee, Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, etc.) selects a FEMALE VP running mate (such as Nikki Haley, another Sarah Palin catastrophe waiting to happen to diabolically cause political disaster).....and the Democratic presidential nominee/candidate is Hillary Clinton (no matter who of what gender she selects to be her VP running mate)....or the Democratic presidential nominee/candidate is Bernie Sanders, and he selects a FEMALE VP running mate....I will probably vote for the Constitution Party candidates, as I did in 1992, 1996, and 2008.
(2) IF a MALE GOP presidential nominee/candidate (be he Huckabee, Rand Paul, etc.) selects a MALE VP running mate, I will vote for them - no matter if the Democratic presidential nominee/candidate is Hillary or Bernie.
(3) IF a MALE GOP presidential nominee/candidate (be he Huckabee or whoever) selects a FEMALE VP running mate (such as inferior-gender Nikki Haley)....and the Democratic presidential nominee/candidate is Bernie Sanders, and he selects a MALE VP running mate, I will vote for the Sanders team, to help insure that no woman becomes a heartbeat away from the Presidency, like Sarah Palin was.
Biblical imperatives [e.g. Isaiah 3:12, Nahum 3:13, First Corinthians 14:33-38, and First Timothy 2:11-15] take precedence over demonic and compromising mandates to "broaden the base" and "expand inclusive diversity" to purportedly gain a voting majority.
I realize that there are other factors to consider than anti-Scriptural feminist sexism misnamed "equality," such as indiscriminate and wrongfully-discriminatory immigration, anti-Israeli-settlements antisemitism, homosexual sodomy licensings misnamed "love" and "marriage equality," abortion homicide lamely pseudo-excused by imposing the words "choice" and "health," raising the Minimum Wage for hard-working laborers standing on their feet all day to deal with nasty and demanding customers, giving seniors substantial annual COLA increases while not raising the Minimum Retirement Age of SS recipients but instead lowering it to age 60 as the Bible indicates in both Leviticus 27 and First Timothy 5...and other items of pertinence.
But at least the woman-in-charge issue is indicative of either correct or incorrect attitudes involving many issues, and reveals essential and basic motivation - whether good or evil.
Not only that, I have the constitutional right, in view of obvious personal application of the Non-Establishment/Non-Prohibition Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, to designate whatever litmus test regarding and concerning candidates which I have the freedom and liberty to so designate.
REFERENCE = http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2014/03/effects-of-porn-on-your-marriage
- http://sitepalace.com/nopixwebs/xian_sex_ed_essay1.htm [ http://computerarium.tripod.com/vicorikv.jpg ]
- http://sitepalace.com/nopixwebs/xian_sex_ed_essay2.htm [ http://confrontation.faithweb.com/icorigin.jpg ]
Obviously, God does NOT want a WOMAN to be a presidential nor even vice-presidential candidate of any political party - according to obvious applications of Leviticus 27:1-5, Ecclesiastes 7:26-28, Isaiah 3:12, Nahum 3:13, First Corinthians 11:1-16 and 14:33-38, First Timothy 2:11-15 and First Peter 3:7....which verses you, if, than as, a Christian, not merely should but also must respect.
Sorry, Michelle Bachmann. And Sarah Palin.
Both Antonin Scalia's and Roy Moore's interpretation of what is lawful (and concordant with that founding-fathers document called the Holy Bible which they were recorded as alluding to) pertaining to which religion, religious beliefs, and religious practices and actions are legitimate regarding the Non-Establishment and Non-Prohibition Religion Clauses of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution thankfully take precedence to and override contrary diatribes of groups like the Antagonists United for Separation of Church/Synagogue/Mosque and State/Government and their ilk.
Such groups as the AU are non-Constitutionally one-sided, being that the Constitution's First Amendment contains not merely the Non-Establishment Religion Clause but also and equally the Non-Prohibition-of-Religion Clause.
In other words, anti-religion secularism - whether intended to be imposed in public schools, public buildings, government property and buildings, etc. - from those espousing, suggesting, mandating, or demanding such without majority authorization (as, for example, Antagonists United for Separation of Church/Synagogue/Mosque and State/Government, the ACLU, SPLC, PAW, FFRF, atheists and homosexuals) is not required, nor obviously advised, for any member of Congress, the President and his staff/cabinet, judges and legislators, law-enforcement agents and officers, the military, nor for any United States government official.
Not all judges of the Supreme Court and lower courts determine what is lawful and legal religion, religious speech, religious practices and actions, but only those judges who base their judicial decisions of what American founding fathers and their followers documented and regarded and yet regard as The Ultimate Religious Standard - namely that Highest Source of Enlightenment which humans have thankfully become aware of, which has in the past been and yet remains the Sacred 66-books Christian Holy Bible, comprised of both Old and New Testaments, upon which a substantial part of the Islamic Koran is also based.
To wit, prohibition and punishment against homosexual lust and related homosodomy is clearly forbidden by such Scriptural passages as Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24-28, and First Corinthians 6:9-10 [KJV/RSV/NKJV].
Now, for your reading entertainment, yours truly has decided to fabricate some imaginary dialogues.
The operative word is: IMAGINARY - and any relation to what is printed with anyone or anything in real life is not necessarily accidental and might not be a coincidence, but what the heck if I can prove some good points?
BULK-MAILERS: Why don't you send us more donation money for all the bulk mail we send you for disabled veterans, declaration of abhorrence against ISIS, signing petitions to your federal state legislators, support of anti-abortionism without mentioning homosexuality, religious-liberty prayer to allah or to Jesus or whoever, appreciative response for updated literature about what we're doing?
ME: First off, I am not the National Treasury, if you had never thought of that. I have living expenses, you know: rent, food, gasoline, heat, lights, sewer, insurance of several types - and they are not only not free, but they recur regularly, even monthly, as residual expenses.
And ever hear of tithing to my local church?
I am not a welfare agency for wounded veterans. They should not have been so stupid as to enlist into harm's way, and then carelessly and presumptuously become incapacitated by some foreign explosive device. God does not allow the feet of the righteous to stumble, and they stumbled (so to speak) - so go figure.
What can I do about ISIS torturing and raping trapped Syrian and Iraqi Christians and not Jews over in the Middle East? Why not bemoan ISIS beheading Jews instead of only Christians? Why are Jews excluded by the decapitators? Why are Jews not mentioned by the ACLJ and other bulk-mailers as target of ISIS?
I certainly hope that the right guys and not gals get elected here in America to prevent ski-masked ISIS murderers from sneaking into the United States and wreaking havoc - although I would not really mind them decapitating whichever immodestly-indecent winter mopheads, and seasonal-warmth publicly sleevesless, slacksless, and/or soxless females, plus homo-and-abortion-and-evolution heretics they come across if they did come over here.
Signing petitions to Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar, and Keith Ellison? Are you kidding? Ever tried talking to a wall? What use is that, being that most of their views are diametrically opposed to mine? Get real. Why waste time and money asking for such?
Remember, moral platitudes and Christianity itself is not what gets elected into office. Those abstractions are not on any ballot, although sometimes close to that as referendums. Who is on the ballot, instead, and who gets elected, are candidates - though, admittedly, those either for or against my Biblically-oriented social-issues preferences and positions.
Even if I send money to certain candidates, are they going to waste it on expensive TV commercials which few people actually see, or radio ads which few people actually hear?
Most people nowadays have their interests targeting not terroristically-imposed crap assaulting and defiling their eyes which they cannot control on the boob tube, but rather discreetly and quickly go right to and selectively view what they want to see with understandable discrimination on the internet.
Heck, I never even ever buy a Star-Tribune newspaper anymore, because the editorialists and reporters thereof frequently - like Satan himself - fraudulently misrepresent me and a whole lot of others like me by claiming a gamut of things like "Minnesotans voted for Al Franken" when this Minnesotan did not vote for Al Franken, and thus they leave themselves vulnerable to a class-action lawsuit for defamation.
That would be neat. Expensive and complicated, to be sure. But we desperately need the remedy money.
Why give money to secular media when not that much bang is gotten from the buck? I suppose what the candidates who get meager donation money do is simply mail out more solicitation letters with it. Be better if they used it to feed themselves with a lunch at McDonald's or Arby's or Burger King or KFC or Wendy's.
I appreciate updates on what you bulk-mailers are doing in your own little unique niche, but keep in mind that I really don't have that much interest in what you are doing compared to what I am doing, which - to me - is far more important.
RUBIO: You never send e-mail to me. Why?
ME: Why do you merely have an email@example.com e-mail address posted on your website, and not a form which I can fill out?
HUCKABEE and GIRL-TALK: Why don't you send us more e-mailed info?
ME: It would help, Huck, if your webform worked after I type in my info to you and click on Send. "Forbidden" is not a nice response to come up thereafter. Better get your act together concerning that, or you won't get to first-base as a viable GOP candidate. And you, GirlTalk Christian blog, why don't you provide a visible Captcha which I can type in, rather than chiding me thereafter for not having typed in what you never provided in the first place for me to type in? You also better get your ducks in a row if you want that to change.
ME [as a cop tapping on the car window of a traffic-speed violator]: Hey, didn't you see the Speed Limit sign? You were going 45 in a 35 mph zone?
HER: I had difficulty deciding how to interpret the symbolism on that sign, as I have trouble determining interpretation of Scripture verse words, particularly those relating to homosexuality in Romans chapter one, which to me and to Obama are vague and perhaps overbroad. They could mean a lot of different diverse things.
For example, what is meant by "Speed Limit?" Does that apply to only cars, or to trucks and UFO's? Does that apply to me personally as a human body, or merely apply to other cars in front of me? Words can be interpreted in all sorts of ways.
ME: Are you trying to be funny? You just violated the Law. You in your car and your car went too fast in a designated speed zone.
HER: On what authority do you say that? What version of the Biblical statutes mixing church and state are you imposing? I have constitutional rights. Do other cops agree with your interpretation about that? And what seminary were they trained at?
ME: With my constitutional rights, I am going to write you out a ticket because of your speed-zone violation. In one sense, it is irrelevant if other police officers agree with my interpretation of church-and-state morality statutes, because I have been commissioned to be judge, jury, and executioner in situations like this, and insist on my particular interpretation pertaining to such.
Not only that, you will have to appear in court and relate to the judge enough question-and-answer info in a mandatory dialogue with him about you adequately having read the Driver's Manual, and if he feels that that is insufficient, you will probably lose your Driver's License on the spot, and your car will be impounded. Not only that, you might decide to haggle with him then about sundry possible interpretations of wordings - Biblical and otherwise.
JESUS: Unless you eat my flesh, and drink my blood, you won't make it into eternal life.
ME: WHAT did you say? Did I hear you right?
ME: Are you nuts? Do you not realize that if I chomp into your ass, or bite off your penis, the Roman soldiers will arrest me for cannibalism, and you will bleed to death unless an ambulance comes and takes you to the nearest Roman hospital? What the hell did you utter that ridiculous cannibalistic command to me for?
JESUS: Do you believe that I have mere words of eternal life? Do you believe that my mere words are spirit and truth?
ME: Are you talking figuratively, symbolically, allegorically, or metaphorically?
JESUS: Damn right.
ME: Why even suggest drinking your blood? What purpose does that serve? Here you have been doing marvelous miracles and orating great doctrinal teaching...and now this?
Do you not realize that us Jews were commanded in the Torah to never drink blood, and if we did, God would irreparably and irrevocably cut us off?
JESUS: Remember the Exodus from Egypt, in which God ordered the Jews to kill and eat a passover lamb and sprinkle blood on the doorposts?
ME: Yeah. So?
JESUS: Well, my flesh relates back to that lamb, and my blood relates back to the shed blood of the lamb spread on the doorposts.
ME: Kinky. But what a strange setup for redemption and sin abrogation. How should "lamb" be interpreted? Can an acceptable alternate interpretation actually mean some Egyptian cat - being that the Egyptians loved cats? And maybe some, back then, for whom lambs were too pricey, went to the local Egyptian fast food superette and bought cheaper cotto salami, then to a hardware store and bought red paint to smear on the doorposts instead of messy and stinky lamb's blood drawing flies which the Egyptian Department of Health might have deemed unlawful?
Cannot be nitpicky and legalistic about all this, can you?
Some apostates, back then, might perhaps have even decided that a viable alternative interpretation for red blood could very well have been white paint?
JESUS: That's what God arbitrarily chose.
ME: The white paint?
JESUS: You taking my words and intended thoughts out of context?
ME: Your flesh is a far cry from lamb's flesh, and should your body parts be eaten raw or instead cooked well-done or medium rare?
JESUS: Let's get off the body-and-blood thing for a while, whether it is done every hour on the hour, or as often as every other hour. You are already made clean by the words which I have spoken to you, according to John 15:3.
ME: Oh really? If I am already made clean by you mouthing a few select words to me, why the heck do you then have to actually be shamefully and painfully crucified on some cross, die in humiliation, rise from the dead, and only appear to those who afterwards believed in and/or believe in you?
JESUS: Nibbling my flesh, which actually is less tasty than communion wafers or cracker crumbs, and sipping my blood - which obviously has quite different molecular properties than either real intoxicatable wine or grape juice - is what I am going to do at The Last Supper, and that cup - or more properly the liquid in the cup, sorry about that - is my blood shed for the remission of sins.
ME: Great. Here we go again. Grape juice or wine is shed blood? It almost seems that you've been wandering around in the desert heat too long. If mere grape juice or wine is blood shed for the remission of sins, why for Pete's sake do you plan to soon shamefully shed your real blood by being crucified on some cross?
How should I interpret that? How should I interpret the words "effeminate" and "sodomites" in First Corinthians 6:9-10? Does the word "effeminate" instead mean yippy-skippy carefree gay, and the word "sodomites" to be interpreted as "love" instead of "lust" in some make-believe type of "marriage" of which there is absolutely not one instance in the entire Genesis-to-Revelation Holy Bible of any two named persons ever being in a homosexual relationship called "marriage?"
JESUS: Well, concordant with that, porn is not "art," abortion homicide is neither "choice" nor "health," evolution is never "science," and feminist sexism is not "equality."
ME: Spot on.
So you want us to eat wafers, bread crumbs, or bits of cracker plus sip grape juice or wine out of little cups "often?"
JESUS: The actual Greek word in The Text is not properly interpretated nor translated as "often" but instead is: whenever. Like for example only once a year during Holy Week near Maunday Thursday or Good Friday at Passover.
ME: So ingesting wafers and wine does not atone for our sins by ourselves? We cannot sacrificially nibble and sip ourselves into holy sinless perfection? Shouldn't we sacrifice wafers and wine back to you in lieu of your sacrifice for us? So immodestly-hairstyled-in-public mopheads cannot self-atone for their own continuing public-nuisance semi-indecent-exposure sin of not always wearing an up-do or having tied back their loose long hair into a single back-of-head ponytail....by simply committing and not performing the good work of nibbling and sipping? I thought that believing in you is the greatest good work we must do to merit, or be merited with, salvation.
JESUS: That is one of the things involved with not ingesting communion bread and wine unworthily. When you ingest the appetizers, you must regard me as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the penitent and not impenitent in the world. Second, respect and honor this blood-sacrifice thing involved in the atonement you receive from me as my sacred way to accomplish that redemption for you. Third, do not pig out with the appetizers. Fourth, ingest them only if you admit that you have sinned, are sorry for that, do not ever want to sin again, and crave reconciliation in spite of your sins.
Baptism does not save, even though Peter says it saves. There are baptized infants who grow older yet remain accursedly infantile and wayward, destined for hellfire. The penitent dying thief might never have been immersed, or merely sprinkled with water, and he got into Paradise the same day he died.
ME: He might have wanted to do baptism and communion, if he had not died first. But we do not need to do any of that?
JESUS: Do it if you can, when you can. Remember, the lamb and lamb's blood at the Exodus under Moses relates to you now or later eating my proverbial flesh and drinking my proverbial blood in memory of and allegiance to atonement associated with that, which lamb-equivalent, that is, me, will be slaughtered as The Ultimate Sacrifice once and for all, not over and over at repetitious communion services, for your sins but not mine (or my temporarily imputed ones), with my blood deposited not on Egyptian-housing doorposts but rather on the rough wood of a Roman cross.
ME: There are a number of words which can be interpreted in all sorts of weird and absurd revisionist ways as to what they could be misconstrued by deviants ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth, always rebelliously going off on diversionary time-wasting tangents....such words as flesh, blood, juice, crackers, cross, gay, marriage, nibble, sip, chomp, bite, art, choice, health, science, equality, apples and oranges, resurrection, roofing nails, test tubes, spark plugs, toasters .....
JESUS: I know, I know. Where did you want to start? I can see that we are going to be here for quite a while.