Proto-Hyksos of Armeno-Jerusalemites
Iraq on the Brink
There was no thought whatsoever on my part to do yesterday's Hyksos topic on Passover. I believe that Passover was the day when God led the Israelites out of Hyksos-ruled Egypt. Coincidence? I had planned to do the Hyksos topic on March 30, the first 24-hour period of Passover, but ended up pushing it a day ahead due to the Christian-militia topic. I HAD NO PLAN TO PUBLISH IT ON PASSOVER. IT JUST WORKED OUT THAT WAY.
The thing is, the Jewish calendar is not always perfectly timed with the moon. Passover is to be timed with the full moon. The perfect full moon was at 2:25 am on March 30, wherefore the first day of the feast, correct me if I am mistaken, was to take place, as far as God is concerned, not on the 30th. Wikipedia claims:
"...the 14th day of Nisan begins on the night of a full moon after the vernal equinox."
The equinox was at 2:25 am on the 30th. That suggests that the 14th of Nisan (= first day of the feast) should have started on the evening of the 30th and continued through to the evening of the 31st (yesterday). The Jews have the 29-30th as the 15th of Nisan.
If true, I find it astounding that the Hyksos topic of yesterday -- which was timed by Tim's email several days ago, and by events in the news that took up some of my time -- was published on Passover. I tell you no lie, that I was so consumed in writing that I didn't consider for a second the Passover connection to the doom of the Hyksos...until later in the day, after publishing it.
It was not typical that I awoke at about 2 am, and then even shared that with readers. I thought it was 5 or 6 am, the time when I often awake. In yesterday's first paragraph, I wrote: "It's now 2:30 am and I have gotten sleep." I didn't know, until now, that the full moon was at 2:25 am the morning before. I don't know whether that has any significance; it could be coincidental, but, correct me if I'm wrong, it would have been on last night's full moon, not the perfect full moon the night before, that the Hebrews were setting off from Egypt.
In the second paragraph yesterday, I wrote:
"I just saw the beautiful full moon at "high noon," and I reflected that it's the Passover moon. I don't have any lamb, nor wine, and frankly I just ran out of bread, but I do have some yeast-less tortillas that I keep in case I run out of bread. Hmm, maybe I will -- no actually I WILL -- break it today."
Amazing, the clues never stop coming that God is running the show of the bloodline topics. And this tends to prove that He has, all along, wanted to expose the Hyksos now, something that He has not done in the past, probably lest the world should know at a pre-mature time.
I'm the first-born in my family, but fortunately I was not stricken at 2:30 am with the death-curse.
Confident that God is helping to direct the topic His way, you should be thankful that I am not personally tasked with leading the way. Confident that God is watching all that I write (though not keeping all errors out), I regret that He will NOT reveal to me who the man of sin is, though I have practically begged to know. I won't go so far as begging, as I understand that I, and you, are not allowed to know at this time. I don't know why not, but I understand that we are not yet to know.
What we can know is that He has a VERY BIG SURPRISE for the end-time Hyksos. We are also to know not to gloat when disaster comes, though I think great rejoicing under the other circumstance is called for. We are also to know not to look to our worldly things when we see the man of sin, for that is the first sign that He has but arrived. We look only to survive, not to impress, only to help others survive, not to increase personally. I think I have that right.
I haven't put myself up for auction in a while, but I think I'm still worth more than two sparrows, which means that He has me on his "to-do" list, to make sure I won't starve or freeze to death, or get pushed over a bridge into a dark body of horrifying water. I'm confident that you are worth more than many sparrows, so be calm and at peace if you know you don't want this world...because you know that you want His world.
Does it all mean that I have the years of the 70th Week pegged correctly by Divine Direction? I dunno. Not necessarily. I've been hoping, but so were many others in the past.
In the 2016 chapter, I lay a rule for figuring out the last year in the Week. I say that there must be more than 1260 days between the Passover at mid-Week and the Feast of Trumpets at the Week's end. That occurs when 2005 and 2016 are proposed as the last years of a hypothetical Week. All other years proposed for the final year of the Week have less than 1260 days between those two holy days.
Several years ago, when developing that theory, I checked up until 2022 or 23, but no further. BUT I have just checked 2024, and found that there are about 1286 days between Passover (March 27) in 2021 and Trumpets (Oct 3) in 2024. I would feel sick if the Week did not begin until 2017, at the earliest, and extend to Trumpets of 2024. But I'll get over it.
You who might be delving deeper into the topic shouldn't take all the points made about the two Hyksos branches as gospel. While I do think that Zeus and Poseidon represented two Hyksos branches, it's too early to start making dogma out of this mess. I might have Ixion pegged wrongly in the southern (= Upper Egypt) Nibelung branch. Instead, he might depict the Zeus-Sion branch that merged with the southern branch in the Zeus-Europa relationship to Crete. Myth writers couldn't get every merger of peoples/cults perfectly correct because such mixes could get complicated.
You'll note that the offspring of the Zeus-Poseidon relationship out of Tyre was mythical Minos (perhaps the root of Manes in Anatolia), symbol of the Minoans...who should have been from Min/Amun, the god of Egypt that was at odds with the Atun cult of the southern branch. The Minoans might then have founded the Maeonians=Manes in Anatolia.
Although there's too much mud for me personally to make sense of it all, something just struck me that has not occurred before. There were three brothers, Zeus, Poseidon and Hades. I asked myself, should Hades also depict a Hyksos people? No, I thought, but a proto-Hyksos people, for I had identified Hades as the Cadusii>Hatti peoples. Therefore, if the three brothers did depict Hyksos (and I now strongly believe they did), then the Hatti could indeed have been a branch of the Hyksos that came out of Egypt.
That thought led me to ask whether my identification (of years ago) of Zeus, as Sittacene, "son" of the city of Rey/Rhagae, could somehow help to clinch the proto-Hyksos theory. And, as you can see, "Sitta(c)" easily modifies to/from "Azzi/Assi" and/or a Hades-like term such as "Cadusii." One might even consider a Sitta link to "Hittite," but I am more certain that Sittacene represented the Zedek name of pre-Jerusalem, and the Egyptian god, Seth/Sutekh. Let's not forget that the husband of Aedon in Grecian Thebes was "Zethus."
Next I asked whether my identification (of years ago) of POS(eidon) as Buz, son of Nahor, could possibly link to the same Hyksos elements. I had also identified POS(eidon) as the Sumerian god, Apsu/Abzu (= "Buz"-like), for it's known that Abzu was related to Enki (of the Tammuz cult) while many tend to link Poseidon to Enki. Abzu's mate was Tiamat, which I identified as a Tammuz/Dumuzi variation. In Phoenicia, Tammuz was Adonis so that PosEidon very much appears to be that Absu-Tiamat merger.
I locate Buz's tribes somewhere among the Nairi of Armenia because I identify the latter as tribes of Nahor; the Nairi lived to the east of Lake Van as one would go toward Hayasa Azzi (though the Nairi empire spread all around Lake Van). In fact, the Nairi lived on the frontier of what Wikipedia describes as the land of Hayasa Azzi (see Nairi-empire map). You'll forgive me but in the last update I twice misspelled that tongue-twister, "Hawaya" Azzi. It hit me just moments ago as I rolled the wrong spelling, "Hawasa," around in my mouth. I substituted the 'w' with a 'b' (common) and got "Absu"! Perhaps "Hawasa" was a real spelling at one time. Perhaps "Aps/Abz" also became "Assi/Azzi."
There's nothing of a stretch in all this. Gorgo-Armenian pagans simply went down to rule Egypt, but also spread across what is now Turkey. And the Hyksos were one of those Armenian crowds into Egypt. They all represented the devil's sons for which God has prepared Hell, for they caused untold human misery by war, and continue to pillage the world to this day.
The Cadusii were to the south-west of lake Urmia. In this map of ancient (post-Seleucid) Armenia, one can see Urmia in conjunction with other Armenian strongholds. Wikipedia tells that the Nairi empire spread as far as south-west of Urmia, wherefore one can suspect a Nairi relationship with the Hermes-branch Cadusii. AND, "Hittite inscriptions deciphered in the 1920s by the Swiss scholar Emil Forrer testify to the existence of a mountain country, the Hayasa and/or the Azzi, lying around Lake Van." One can see on the map that Armenians had spread their rule all the way to Tyre, where the Sion-Hermes cult had set up shop as mythical Cadmus.
The northern-most point of the Nairi empire (verging on the Aras river) was Daiaeni, also "Diauhi," defined as "the Land of the Sons of Diau,", smacking of Dia, wife of Ixion. If this land is indeed the correct derivation of mythical Dia, then Ixion could be named after the Armenian god, Hayk/Haik. If "Ixion" has the double meaning of "Dion/Sion," then do keep in mind that I had linked key-pagan elements of pre-Jerusalem to the Aras-river peoples, and that Diauhi was on/off the Aras. Then remember that Ixion was made a son of Ares by some. It all works rather well.
In fact, recalling that I traced Hera to certain Jerusalem-related aspects the Aras river, let me remind you that one myth writer had Zeus transform Hera into Nephele, and then invited Ixion to mate with her, as though Hera and Nephele were quite the same entity. The map of the Nairi empire has the Diauhi smack at the Jerevan region, the region to which I trace Hera.
Hmm. Nahor was the brother of Abraham, and so if the Nairi were proto-Nibelungs at Jerusalem's mount Gareb and/or Nephtoah, wouldn't that explain why Abraham made his home to the west of Jerusalem, among the Hebron Amorites? As I trace Amorites back to the Habur river of Akkado-Babylon, and therefore to Hebrew Amorites, shouldn't Hebron have been a settlement of those Hebrew Amorites? I do claim that Amorites of Jerusalem were Hebrews, and that the Arthurian cult traces back to them, not to Israelites. You will note that the Habur river was near Haran, the city that Nahor is thought to have lived in. God hated the Amorites.
Interestingly, the Diauhi articles tells of a Zion-like city: "The Urartian sources speak of Diauehi's three key cities -- Zua, Utu and Sasilu..." Wikipedia locates Utu smack where it locates the Hayasa Azzi, in what is now Erzurum province. But parts of Diauhi are also located in Artvin, keeping in mind that while it and Erzurum smack of the Arthurian cult, I did trace the Arthurian cult to Nibelungs so that we might seek mythical Nephele among this Armenian sector of Ixion roots.
This is all new today; I had never known of Zua when I traced Ixion to the roots of Sion/Zion. I kept a theory that "Zeus" linked to "Susa," only to find later that Zeus should depict Sittacene on the Susa frontier, but now we see Sasilu as a key Diauhi city along with Zua. I should of course remind you that Soducena is smack in/beside this land of Diauhi so that we expect Zeus/Dion/Z/Sion elements there too. Soducena was smack at Jerevan; see map of Aras river with Jerevan shown. It appears to me that Jerevan is indeed on the Hrazdan river. Checking, the Yerevan article does verify that the Armenian capital is on the Hrazdan.
The article uses an Ervan variation (from ancient "Erebuni") for the city, smacking of the ancient Harpasus river that I thought should flow through Jerevan. This city was the root of the Yervand dynasty of Armenians that morphed into "Orontos" in Greece, and so we can trace Jerevan elements to the city of Daphne (Syria) on the Orontos river there, which city later became the Seleucid capital (Antioch)...but was also called "Harbiye." And that's why I link Harbiye to mount Gareb in Jerusalem, for I also link "Jerevan" to "Jerusalem" and "Gareb." You know by now that we're taking Arphaxadites in these terms so that the dragon cult of Europe was indeed from true Arabs...if Arphaxadites represented true Arabs.
If they did, then in reality all Hebrews, from Arphaxadite's grandson, Eber, were from the root of all Arab stock. That is, Arabs were not Hebrews, but Hebrews were Arabs, so to speak.
Apparently, mythical Daphne was the Tubal sector of Gog, for T,bilisi (Georgian capital) was "Tiflis." The latter term was from "T'Pilisi," an ancient form reflecting the Hatti king, Suppiluliuma, who married into the Hayasa royal line. This merger could have led to mythical Atti(s).
Another article locates the "Diauchi" in the Aras-Pasinler plain. This same website claims: "...note their map incorrectly locates Zua, and hence Zivin Kale, too close to Erzurum; it should lie to the east of Pasinler [the city]..." Pasinler, in Erzurum District, is 25 miles east of Erzurum on the Aras river. A quick look this morning places Pasinler to the west of the Aras-Hrazdan junction, close enough and related enough to have formed "Zion" in Jebusite Jerusalem.
The Diauhi appear to well-reflect the "Dahae" (some say this meant "dog") that founded Daghestan. Wikipedia also uses a Diaokhi variation of Diauhi, if that helps to make the Daghestan connection. I've traced Apollo fundamentally to the Dahae/Daghestani. Avars live in Daghestan to this day, and so do remember that the "Egyptian" Hyksos ruled at Avaris, and that I tend to link those Nile-delta Hyksos (and Apollo) to dog/jackal-worshiping Avvites...whose god was Nibhaz/Anubis (Anu-Absu?). It again works rather well.
I know what some must be thinking, that the God of Israel was nothing but one of many Armenian gods, and that this God was related to the Zion of Armenia. Let's face it, folks, THERE IS A SINGLE CREATOR, any good thinker banks on that who doesn't let sinful lust or love of human pride cloud their thinking. It would be no surprise if in days before Israel's formation, the Creator was in Armenia seeking to undo the pagan cults in ways that were proper for His long-term plan to defeat the Eden Snake with appropriate humiliation. You will note that Jerevan is a merely giant's piddle from Ararat, the place that I assume God chose for the start of the new, post-Flood human "race."
Later, the Creator chose Jeruso-Zion to be the place of his chosen Israelite-branch of the dragon cult. Only He was bent on purifying that one branch, and sending His messages to all of humanity through it. We get the message, that the dragon cult is guilty of hell, and that Israel is even more guilty for choosing it rather than Him. BUT, God will pass over the Christian Elect on the "Day"...that about 40 days of Rain (i.e. within the 45 final days as per Daniel 12:12-13) comes again in the form of fire and brimstone from the clouds at Jesus' feet.
One suspects that Armenia will not escape the end-time events related to Gog. You will note that the Nairi empire overlapped northern Iraq, and that Arphaxadites were in the Kirkuk to Mosul areas.
The Iraq-election situation is not allowing the United States a say this time around:
"Ali al-Lami, now the director of the ["de-Baathification"] committee, said the [six rejected] candidates were only allowed to run in the first place because of pressure from the United Nations and the United States.
Lami said the committee won't allow any foreign power to interfere, including the U.S. Embassy."
The article mentions one of the six accused Baathists candidates, who denies hat he was ever a Baathist. The whole country, and Obama, must know that the cause of this committee is purely to rob Allawi of his victory. The courts are to decide the committee's argument.
In an article dated today on the recent double terrorist bombings in Russia, we find Daghestan mentioned as one anti-Russia hotbed. I've not mentioned much about Daghestan in the past, but perhaps today I should:
"...This [chaos] most notably applies to the Caucasus region and areas like Chechnya, Dagestan, and Ingushetia which are overwhelmingly Muslim...
...[A longish list of previous attacks my Muslims on Russia]
...It is noticeable, however, that Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, hinted (March 29, 2010) that the subway explosions may have their roots and links to the Islamic insurgency along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Lavrov stated that 'We all know that the Afghan-Pakistani border, in the so-called no-man's land, the terrorist underground is very well entrenched.' He continued by stating that 'We know that many people there actively plot attacks, not just in Afghanistan, but also in other countries. Sometimes the trails lead to the Caucasus.'"
Let's face it, attacks like these, while horrible, cannot topple a strong super-power with a small Muslim minority population. But an increased number of such attacks makes national leaders listen. If a terrorist group wants to get its way, it explodes a location, and sends the leaders a message: "Change such and such or there will be more explosions." What did Russia do recently that would anger the Muslim radicals? It got friendly with Obama, signing a nuclear deal to reduce missiles, but by so doing it had to mouth support for Western sanctions on Iran, etc.
The point is, what will happen to Georgia, Armenia and Dagestan -- the ancient lands of Gog et al -- when the anti-Christ rises successfully in Iraq with scores of violent Muslims? Will they all arise from all their holes and no longer hibernate? Will they put on an air of pride and victory and with confidence roll forward on all the nations wherein they have extensive "sleeper cells"? Will they even begin to foment terror-crimes in America and Europe? Is Obama allowing them to increase even now? Is there a global plot afoot to grant world rule to modern Arphaxadite bloodlines?
We could keep this modest by just banking on the Caucasian land of Gog going over to end-time Gog. It just makes sense. But I still have a hard time seeing a terrorist Gog in charge of Europe officially. There has to be some middle-ground agency between the terrorist Muslims having no chance at the EU or UN helms, and Western Arphaxadites that can set Gog up in the Middle East while also having elitist access on his behalf to the EU or UN. In that picture, something snaky has to be taking place that defies common logic, which is why I share conspiracy theories regularly. There has to be something of an image being fed the masses that isn't true, where the truth is diametrically opposed to the image. That's a classic conspiracy.
I'm not saying that Gog will be accepted by all the West, but that his Arphaxadite supporters (i.e. the Illuminati at large) will cause all the West to accept and honor him. If I have that wrong, then where Revelation 13 tells that he will be worshiped by all, it must merely be the local "all," i.e. of the Israeli theater only. If you don't buy that, then somehow some agency of a global order must love Gog sufficient to pass him off to the masses as a world god of sorts. And that is why I entertain a West-loved anti-Christ within the O-circle. He could still hate Europe and bring her to ruin as per Revelation 17. He could be of an Illuminati group akin to Hitler's group that despised Rothschild Europe. Mount Sion in Phoenicia was proto-Germany, after all, and the German god, Zio.
In this picture we expect Obama to be friendly with Baathists and other Sunni, and indeed, to this day, April fool's, his indication is pro Allawi and the Sunni blocks. To this day: "The United Nations Security Council [yesterday] called on all political parties to respect Iraq's election results and the choices of the Iraqi people. The U.N.'s most powerful body urged Iraq's leaders 'to avoid inflammatory rhetoric and actions.'"
I don't believe for a second that Allawi has not engaged the West, especially the Americans in Iraq, on what to do about, and how to overcome, the Maliki rage. Contrary to UN statements, I don't believe that the West isn't toying around for a solution to this critical dilemma. The West surely knows the potential prime-ministers that might be chosen to lead Iraq after the dust settles. BUT, will the dust ever settle?
It might. This may not be the Week after all. If not, I'll get over it.
Yesterday, I was simply following the leads, and they led to the ancient Dagestani. There was no plan top touch on the Dagestani. I hardly ever mention them, but just as I did, there was Dagestani news. This article out today:
"Medvedev made a surprise visit yesterday to the violence-wracked southern province of Dagestan, telling police and security forces to use tougher, 'more cruel' measures to fight the 'scum' responsible for terrorist attacks.
...Twin suicide bombings this week in Moscow...
...Another explosion yesterday killed two suspected militants and wounded a third in Dagestan near the border with Chechnya. Police said the men may have been transporting a makeshift bomb.
The day before, two suicide bombings in Dagestan killed 12 people, including nine policemen, a frequent target of attacks in part because they represent Russian authority.
I'm just wondering whether the timing is significant. Is God trying to highlight Dagestan, to you and I, for some important reason? I've never had any idea until yesterday (see update if you haven't read it) that Jerusalem's pre-Israeli dragon-line inhabitants were from ancient Dagestani. Here's a modern map of Caucasia if you're interested.
There's an article out today telling that GM, "Government Motors," has lifted itself out of the mire because at Toyota's expense i.e the latter's sales have dropped and GM's have gone up. It was mentioned here that Toyota's gas-pedal troubles smelled like an Obama plot to get GM back up on its feet. Not that some pedals were not sticking, but that the extensive bad press on Toyota was timed just after the U.S. government took over GM for the purpose of lifting it out of bankruptcy.
Then there was a man televised on national media conducting a hoax. He called 911 and reported during the very event of his Toyota's gas pedal sticking while he lamented that he couldn't stop the car. It sounded like a hoax from the start, for all he had to do was turn the ignition off, or bump the vehicle into neutral. Then, after Toyota got hold of the car, it was reported in the media that the car's brakes had NOT been applied during the incident, for the car's computer system was working just fine where it automatically shuts the car off when both the breaks and gas pedal are applied. It is near impossible for two things to go wrong at once, a sticky gas pedal and a malfunctioning computer that doesn't shut the car off when the breaks are applied during a gas-pedal depression.
I tell this story to show how the O-mafia is ruling the country. Obama needs to win at everything and accomplish big for his big ego. We just saw that ego in the health-care vote. One can only imagine what he bribed and threatened to get his needed votes in the last week before the vote. It also appears that those seven or eight Democrats who were promising to vote nay were playing hard ball, forcing Obama to raise the bribe value in order to get their votes. Not being able to bear the loss of that vote, for the Republicans would cry pure joy in his face, while the Democrats would run a stake through his heart, Obama had his people buy them off.
The country has seen all this, but the Democrat base yet supports him. Only 50 percent of Americans say that Obama does not deserve to be the president. That's a testament of shame on the liberals, hypocrites. Liberals voters are too dull, too taken up by the fever of playing politics against Republicans, to realize that the health-care bill was not on behalf of the people. We have yet to hear anything approaching half the Bush-level cry from liberals on the increased deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan. Suddenly, the deaths of soldiers don't matter anymore.
Encouraged by the way he conducted the "war" on health care, Obama got back to bat on multiple programs that he thought were becoming lost causes. He first sent his steely people to Israel thinking that now they could make Netanyahu bend. The effort appears to have failed instantly. And now we hear that Obama is "engaging" Iran again after apparently ruling that effort a lost cause. All we heard for months was increased sanctions on Iran, but now:
"Washington and Iran sources disclose that the G8 ministers meeting in Gatineau, Quebec, agreed to leave the door open to dialogue with Iran after they were discreetly informed that the Obama administration had launched a secret bid to engage Iran's radical Revolutionary Guards in nuclear talks.
The initiative aimed at bypassing Iran's hardline political leaders and ayatollahs."
Sanctions won't work without Russia and China agreeing to them. The last thing the West wants is an Israeli strike on Iran. So now Obama hopes to succeed in what he advertised from his get-go as the right way to deal with Iran, the non-Bush method by befriending them. Only this time, Obama and his allies think they can undercut A-Madman and his Co-Maniac. I don't know where these men get their brains, but it isn't from Solomon's wisdom. Obama may smell that his dramatic health-care "victory" has saved him from the political graveyard and launched him to greater successes, but only as God grants them on behalf of His anti-Christ plan. That's how I'm seeing things.
I was expecting that Obama should arise from his political woes so that the West will yet respect him and do his bidding in the Middle East. One can sense in the quote above that the G-8 are wholly given over to the O-word, whatever it might be. But European "respect" for Obama has not to do with Obama proving to be a game-winner when he's down, but because Obama has lots of American money that spells most powerful nation on Earth. Take away Obama's American money, and you know that Europeans would be looking the other way. The West sees no solution to the Muslim world crisis apart from America's involvement, and Europeans are sure that the Bush-way was only fuel to the fire so that it'll have to be some form of the more-passive O-way.
If he's the False Prophet, we already know how this will work out. He will make a deal with the devil. He will form a friendship with the devil incarnate. He will act on his behalf. Revelation 13.
He's been trying to make friendly inroads to Gog's primary ally: Iran. He must succeed at doing it his way so that he can claim another political, anti-Busher victory. He must win the ballgame no matter what the bad fruit might be. Even if it spells the toss-out of his own party, as per his low ratings earned for virtually every "game" he's won to date, yet his first priority is to win the game and appear to be a man of victory. The world expects nothing less from this "thing," this "phenomenon" called Obama. You may be getting your news from Fox, but if you have been reading liberal media, you'd know that liberals were lighting his victory cigar on his health-care win. They color him phenomenal as they get any opportunity because they were in his ship from the start. He is of course no phenomenon, but merely an image of one.
Does anyone see the likelihood that, should the anti-Christ come to Iraq in the weeks/months ahead, or even a year or more from now, that Obama will treat the crisis with an outstretched hand? I used to think that the Americans had to leave Iraq before the anti-Christ would arise, but if I were a betting man on this date, I would treat the odds 50-50 as to whether Obama will indeed remove his troops. The promise to remove them may have caused the anti-Christ to decide to enter Iraq at roughly this time, but even if Obama leaves them there during the anti-Christ's rise, one might still see his rise continue and advance.
I'm suggesting that the American military could end up working together with the anti-Christ for to topple Maliki and other Shi'ites. That makes a lot of prophecy sense because the False Prophet will unleash fire from the sky on the anti-Christ's behalf.
Revelation 13, or any part of Revelation, does not reveal that the anti-Christ and the False Prophet (I view the latter worldly-supreme between the two) are enemies prior to their engaging in a partnership. Years ago while the Cold War was still smouldering, I assumed they would at first be enemies, and that they would make a thin-layered partnership of convenience spear-headed by the False Prophet's effort to save the world from his wicked Middle-East takeover. I came to that conclusion because I was stuck on a Russian anti-Christ, and thought that a Zhirinovsky (i.e. anti-Western) type (or even he himself) would become the devil incarnate. But that idea didn't sit well with the picture of False Prophet acting on the anti-Christ's behalf.
I am now more open to an anti-Christ that is Western-based from the start, where there is no animosity between the two Biblical characters to begin with. However, as per the nuclear deal just made between Obama and Putin (another Obama "victory" that is as good as the number zero), we may yet see a Russian anti-Christ that is "friendly" with Obama from the start. Obama will be "friendly" toward him, and he will be "friendly" toward Obama. But he will hate Europe, though he may not let on one iota...until the end.
The question is: is the sudden Russian emphasis on Dagestan and Chechnya these days, and the Russian accusation that these Muslims are trained in the Af-Pak theater, going to bring Putin and Obama together on the Iraq-election crisis? It could be possible that, as part of the nuclear deal just signed, Obama -- perhaps with NATO giving the nod -- gave Putin the gift of co-world-crisis manager, as Putin has been wanting this role. Putin does not think that the United States should be the world police, but if it is necessary, Putin thinks that he should be an equal partner in that role. Putin will not accept a lower position than the United States, and no deal with Obama will be made where Putin is deemed the lesser of the two.
Let's face it, Western things are going on under the radar on the Iraq-election crisis. The West is planning means by which to avoid a crisis by supporting Allawi and the Sunni blocks. Maliki is poised with the power, perhaps with some hefty Iranian help, to thwart the Western will. A crisis is therefore standing on the horizon, a crisis that needs mediation and "friendly" deals. We are not likely to catch wind of all that the West is doing to maneuver in this mire, but one can predict a spinning of wheels, allowing the anti-Christ to walk in on the scene from the horizon, with bright solar glare at his back so that one cannot see the horns on his head or the ammunition belt on his waist. I see him entering the stage as a problem solver.
If ever we are to watch Iraq, now is the time.
The DEBKAfile article above ends by saying: "But already, there is diplomatic fallout in the Gulf region. When US defense secretary Robert Gates visited Riyadh on March 10, he was told Saudi rulers no longer trusted the Obama administration to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat in the light of its backdoor contacts with the [Iranian Revolutionary Guard]. Gates departed the kingdom after an angry exchange." We can assume the Saudis know much more of the details than we do, and that they have reason to be concerned.
The idea that Iran hopes to overcome Maliki so as to set up it's own puppet government in Iraq is not fancy, but expected. Iran doesn't have what it takes to succeed along normal political lines, but that doesn't mean it's not trying other methods. Muqtada Al-Sadr arranged for his party to vote on what party his block should merge with and support in the formation of a new Iraqi government, whether it should be support for Allawi or Maliki. Perhaps al-Sadr knows the outcome of that vote before it takes place.
The referendum is to be held today. Besides telling us on whose side the al-Sadr Shi'ites are on, it might tell us on whose side Iran is on. The way CNN puts it, it sounds as though al-Sadr is against Allawi from the start, and hopes to get Maliki in there instead as the lesser of two evils:
"Al-Sadr has refused to back the top vote-getters in the March 7 election and is asking his followers to designate a prime minister of their choosing in a referendum this weekend.
...Al-Sadr is holding a referendum at various locations on Friday [today] and Saturday on the prime minister question. Al-Maliki, Allawi and three other names will be presented. The results of the referendum could be a factor in determining whether al-Sadr's faction and/or the Iraqi National Alliance back Allawi or al-Maliki.
...He said Wednesday he is concerned that Iran is interfering in his country's post-election politics. He said Iran invited representatives of Iraqi political groups to that country but shunned his Iraqiya list, despite the fact that it gained the most seats."
One could begin to suspect that the anti-Christ will be planted in Iraq with more than merely an Iranian nod; Iran might have some things to do with raising him to power in the first place. Remember, Togarmah and his father Gomer, if Gomer did indeed represent Cimmerians, were scythians from Iranian ancestry. And the Gogi nation, if indeed they were the "Royal Scythians," were likewise from Iranian descent. But both Cimmerians and Royal Scythians lived in the same place, in what is now coastal Ukraine. It was only afterward that they both came down into Caucasia, Armenia included.
A man in the Iraqi "hot seat" with Iran's backing is not going to form a happy ending in Iraq. And the current flow doesn't suggest an Iran alliance with the Allawi-block Sunni. But, SURPRISE, the following article fresh-published 46 minutes ago:
"The head of a leading Shiite party has thrown his support behind a secular candidate for prime minister -- a major blow to the incumbent Nouri al-Maliki.
The endorsement by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council gives Ayad Allawi a major boost even as anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's followers voted [today] in an unofficial referendum on whom to support.
SIIC leader Ammar al-Hakim said in comments broadcast late [yesterday] that his party will not join any government without Allawi.
...Al-Sadr and al-Hakim's parties are partners in a Shiite religious coalition known as the Iraqi National Alliance."
This is a good lesson for NOT predicting whether the Iraqi snake will turn left or right at any given time. BUT, the al-Sadr referendum results have not yet been announced.
Al-Sadr could tolerate an alliance with the more-violent Saddam-loyal Sunni if Iran tolerated and backed such a partnership of convenience. Assuming that the Saddamist Sunni imminently erupt in violence (the Iraqi health minister and his family were gunned down in their back yard last week), while everything needs to be done by Iran to keep Allawi from the hot seat, might not Iran ask or order al-Sadr to assist those Sunni?
We know that there is not much present love between the Allawi Sunni and the Saddam Sunni, for the Allawi Sunni have chosen to become accepting of the new, West-sponsored Iraq. However, as Allawi is a secularist (which is how he got his Sunni voters in the first place), there is some glue to bond his Sunni to the likewise-secular Saddam Sunni. I think that some of Allawi's Sunni will go over to the Saddam Sunni, rather than vice-versa, at the Appointed Time. That would be the Sunni side that could feasibly merge with the Iranian axis in Iraq.
Will the leader of the Saddam Sunni strike now or wait for Obama to pull out his army? Tough choice. If one waits until August, the seething of the Sunni, who are about to be robbed of electoral victory if Maliki has his way, might dissipate in the meantime. BUT, as the election robbery is being said to last and grow for a months-long stint, the seething of the Sunni might just happen to be a red-hot peak in August. And Obama might be stupid enough to pull out of Iraq under those circumstances, if his Democrats are stupid enough to demand it of him.
I CANNOT predict at this time whether Obama will pull out. He says he will regardless of the election controversy, but he's not a man of his word.
Haaretz has a story that appears to contradict the DEBKAfile:
"...In an interview to 'The Early Show' [today], Obama said 'all the evidence indicates' that Tehran is trying to get the 'capacity to develop nuclear weapons.'
With such a capability, Obama said that Iran could 'destabilize' life in the Mideast and trigger an arms race in the region, adding that, for that reason, he felt 'the idea here is to keep on turning up the pressure.'"
Obama has more than one side to his mouth. This side could be speaking out to Saudi Arabia and others...who are upset at his once again becoming too pal-sy with Iran. The statements do not tell us a hoot about what he is truly up to.
Where does a Palestinian leader get the confidence to announce:
"'ext year, 'the birth of a Palestinian state will be celebrated as a day of joy by the entire community of nations,' says Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in an exclusive interview to Haaretz.
...'The time for this baby to be born will come," he says, "and we estimate it will come around 2011. That is our vision, and a reflection of our will to exercise our right to live in freedom and dignity in the country [where] we are born, alongside the State of Israel in complete harmony,' says Fayyad, 58.
...'If for one reason or another, by August 2011 [the plan] will have failed... I believe we will have amassed such credit, in form of positive facts on the ground, that the reality is bound to force itself on the political process to produce the outcome,' Fayyad says."
The article tells that the state must be formed in Obama's first term. Why does he make such a rule? From where does he get the confidence to make such a rule? He makes it sound as though it has not to do with Obama himself, but I think we should know better. "[Fayyad] and his aides plan for the state to be born during the first term of Barack Obama; he notes that previous U.S. administrations seriously tackled the conflict only toward the end of their second term."
In other words, he's making it look as though the Palestinian leadership is pressing Obama for a state in his first term when the reality is more-likely that Obama has promised this to them through some method that we have yet to see. Whether the plot will work remains to be seen, but one can sense that the plot is deeply afoot in that the O-tormentors are on Israel's back on every instance of Israelite construction in the West Bank.
The West-Bank construction issue is not about that in itself. It's about a Western betrayal of Rothschild-led Israel. I don't know whether Rothschilds are behind the betrayal, or what fractions of the House of Rothschild are in on it, but neither do I sense, in the news, that Rothschild agents are actively opposing the O-circle agenda in Israel. One can imagine that there is an O-circle opposing original Rothschild hopes and dreams in Israel, but one can also imagine that mainline Rothschild leaders have decided to give Palestinians a semblance of a state for the sake of world security.
The Russian eye is on Caucasia: "A 17-year-old widow of a slain Islamist rebel was one of the two female suicide bombers who attacked Moscow's subway, a leading Russian newspaper reported [today]..." But something doesn't smell right about this news:
"The Kommersant newspaper reported that the subway bombers came from Dagestan and Chechnya...
...Federal and local officials in Dagestan refused to comment [today] to The Associated Press on the newspaper report...
Kommersant published a photograph of a young woman dressed in a black Muslim headscarf and holding a pistol. It named her as Dzhennet Abdurakhmanova from Dagestan...
A man with his arm around her, also holding a gun, is identified as Umalat Magomedov, whom the paper describes as an Islamist militant leader killed by government forces in December.
The report, GIVING NO SOURCES [caps mine], said the second bomber has been tentatively identified as 20-year-old Markha Ustarkhanova from Chechnya. [Yesterday], the paper said she was the widow of a militant leader killed last October while preparing to assassinate Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, who is backed by the Kremlin."
None of this is unreasonable, but everything is pointing perhaps too-fast to those two Caucasian countries. Assuming that the no sources given were the Putin circle, one could think that Putin is dead-set to start up a new Caucasian military effort with Kadyrov. The P-circle sounds like the Bush-v-Qaeda crusade:
"Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have called for the terrorists to be unceremoniously destroyed...
...'In my opinion, we have to create such a model for terrorist crimes that anyone who helps them - no matter what he does, be it cook the soup or wash the clothes - has committed a crime,' Medvedev said.
Russian police and security forces have long been accused of seizing people suspected of aiding militants. Some people were tortured and many disappeared, and rights people trying to document the abuses have also been slain, kidnapped, threatened or have disappeared."
The question is: is the above calling for terrorist destruction more than making a few disappear in the jailhouse night, and is it instead the first inklings of a declaration of more war in Caucasia?
Will Kadyrov have much to do with that renewed war?
Shame on me. I misspelled gas peddle yesterday. It should be a "pedal." It's bean a long time sinse I've had to right that werd. I new it wasn't "petal," so "peddle" seemed rite. What the hick, eh?
Obama may be lamenting that March turned out to be a good month for Toyota: "The Japanese carmaker saw its US sales jump 40.7% last month compared with a year earlier...Ford and General Motors also saw their sales rise last month, up 39.8% and 20.6% respectively."
More info on the al-Sadr referendum: "The vote, which has no legal authority, is open to all Iraqis, not just followers of Mr. Sadr's movement, Sadrist officials said." But then who counts (i.e. has the ability to add/remove) the votes if not the Sadrists?
You may have read (fifth update of March) the update mentioning "the Mahdi" in conjunction with Adil Abdul-Mahdi al Muntafiki. The article above continues:
"In addition to Mr. Allawi and Mr. Maliki, the candidates on the Sadrist ballot are Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi; Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a former prime minister; and Muhammad Jaffar al-Sadr, who ran with Mr. Maliki's alliance. He is an uncle of Moktada al-Sadr and the son of Muhammad Baqr al-Sadr, a revered ayatollah killed during the regime of Saddam Hussein."
I dunno about that guy. We have a sense that Iran wants him in Iraq. Note that he's mentioned third, after Allawi and Maliki. I dunno, maybe not, but I sense he could be a right-hand man to the anti-Christ:
"Abdul-Mahdi was educated in France, and is the son of a respected Shiite cleric who was a minister in Iraq's monarchy. He attended high school at Baghdad College, an elite American Jesuit secondary school.
In the 1970s, Abdul-Mahdi was a leading members of the Iraqi Communist Party...Abdul-Mahdi continued his association with Iran and gradually amalgamated his group within the ICP-Central Leadership with the Iranians, rejecting his Marxist past and devoting all his group's time to propagating Khomeini's ideas in France..."
I'll bet my turban that Iran attempts to solve the election crisis with Abdul-Mahdi as the best alternative to the two fighting boys. Let's wait to see whether al-Sadr's referendum somehow pulls his strings.
What I don't understand is why al-Sadr has invited any Iraqi to vote where the task is to ask his own block's members whom they would like to form a governing alliance with. Chances are, his own block will cast the predominance of the votes, but non-members could tilt the results in a different direction that the majority-vote of his members. An article this morning is interesting as it mentions a sixth candidate:
"...But a larger number [of voters at a voting booth] said they had added a sixth name to the list - as they were invited to do: Qusay Abd al-Wahhab, a not very prominent MP from the Sadrist movement, which was otherwise unrepresented in the contest.
The rumour buzzed around that this was the word that had come down from on high about what Moqtada Sadr - who has been living in the Iranian city of Qom for the past two years - actually wanted the referendum to produce.
...Officials said the outcome would be made known a couple of days after voting ended [today]."
The article below doesn't mention that any useful U.S. military equipment in Iraq is coming home. Instead, it mentions only to Afghanistan:
"Third Army Commander Lt. Gen. William Webster told Pentagon reporters [yesterday]...the military will salvage whatever it can during that time, taking items to Kuwait to be rebuilt and shipped directly to the battlefield in Afghanistan. Items that are not fit for battle will make their way back to the United States for training purposes."
I wonder how the Democrats would take it if Obama were to come out and tell them that all usable equipment in Iraq is not coming home. For how long will the globetrotters have it be in the Middle East, we wonder? The article tells that military people are claiming that shipping a typical $30,000 SUV to the United States will cost more than $8,000, which sounds way too high, as there's a made-for-public-consumption load of lies being served so that the vehicles can be left in Iraq...or driven to Afghanistan. At one website, we read, "Ocean [recycled-scrap cargo] trips to China for $12 per ton." An SUV weighs not more than two to three tons. Another site says fabric to Pakistan for $280 per ton. Computers to Japan for 300 per ton. Trucks are just driven on and off ships, a lot easier than loading by other means, and they can be filled with smaller items so as not to waste space. The U.S. military should even have their own vehicle-transporting ships to make it still cheaper, especially when the ships fill up with gas in Iraq for a gift price.
What to make of the Shroud of Turin? At first, I was fully convinced that it was the shroud of Christ by reports of a 3-D image. But later, as it's passage through history may have been connected in more than one way with Templars, I backed off a little. It's possible that the report of a 3-D image is a false report. We have also been told that the image was "burned" on the cloth rather than painted, which helped to convinced me. But what if such reports are not from honest men?
World Net Daily has an article on the shroud with a new image of the face of Jesus. The History Channel will have a program on this new image tonight at 8 pm and again tomorrow at 5 pm. I won't get to watch it. But I have seen something far better.
It was 1979. To the best of my recollection, it was within a few weeks before I was filled with the Holy Spirit -- at my conversion -- in late February/early March of 1979. I was depressed and insecure; I was poor; I had not lived a good life in my youth. I was renting a single room in a basement, which came with a large mirror sitting on a desk and leaning against the wall so that I could not help but see myself whenever sitting at the desk. One day I drew a portrait of my face in the mirror. Happy with the artistic results, I pinned the drawing on the wall. BUT I was not happy with the look that I had taken on. I looked sinful, not in the ugly sense, but I saw darkness within my features; I'm sure now that it was the Spirit convicting me.
Although I had taken drugs many, many times from the age of 16, I was drug-free and sober when, one night, I began to see other people's faces, one after the other, superimposed on my face in the face-drawing hanging on the wall. Each face turned into the other quickly, a second or less at a time. After about a half dozen, I saw a new face of mine, and remarked to the effect, "Yes, that's who I want to be!" The face was "clean" and unburdened, that's the best I can explain it. Then, immediately after seeing my new face, I peered, for at least four or five seconds, at Jesus. I kid you not. I shook my eyes/head a little to make sure I wasn't seeing things, but still His image remained. I had a most-amazing conversion experience soon after that.
So, I can tell you that the computer-generated face seen at the WND article above is NOT the face of the Jesus I saw. The face of the Jesus I saw had long hair and a beard. His appearance was humble and meek, his eyes having concern. He did not appear rough or gruff, nor aggressive. He looked wholly like a man and not at all like what we may think God should look like. He was neither thin nor heavy. He was no muscleman nor the king of cute. The face was more long than round. Later, I could not rule out that the one in the shroud was the one that I saw, but the computer image of the one in the shroud is NOT who I saw.
If you look on the enhanced image of the shroud-face, shown on the cover of Jerome Corsi's book at the WND article, you might see the humility that I speak of. That enhanced (or is it touched-up?) image is a fairy good resemblance of the face I saw, but not exactly. The tip of the nose is too round and the stem of the nose too long. The shroud face is overall too wide, but then the shroud's image may not have been a perfect replica of the man behind it.
I don't like the "Codex" term used in Corsi's book title; it smacks too much like the Templars. To complicate matters more, the article below shows how an artist can produce a negative of a painting upon a cloth, by allowing sunlight, through a painting painted on a piece of glass, to shine on a surface behind the glass. We don't know whether the man claiming this method of producing negatives is telling the whole truth, or even any of it. As of early 2005, he hadn't shared his "product" with other scientists.
When I saw the new me just before seeing Jesus' face, I thought I looked like a singer. But I couldn't sing at all at that time, never even tried, with anyone or any group. A year or so later, I was thinking about that vision, and so I opened the Bible and placed my finer on whatever page it happened to be, as new converts sometimes do to see whether God will give a sign, and when I began reading at my finger, it said, I kid you not, "You shall have a song."
But it was years afterward before I took that promise to task by singing in my car. It was horrible, trust me. Did I tell that I could not sing? It was humiliating, and even the angels took flight as far as they could get. But I had a determination to force the vocal chords into submission. Those chords were in pain though all the years-long process to learn how to sing (I did permanent damage to them).
One day in Texas, about 2003, I went out and bought a microphone, and a cheap recording software package. I had never sung into a mic, and finally after some impatient practice, I recorded 10 songs at random (after which the mic and the software system would no longer work). Three of the songs were about roses, ironically enough. I sang along with other singers. That is, I sat down close to a speaker as the music came though, and sang into the mic about a foot from the speaker. If the mic was too far from the speaker, my voice would be drowned out by the pro singer. I had a hard time getting the mic just the right distance so as to blend in like part of the band. You can do this too if you like singing (the mic is plugged into the computer at the time).
Why am I telling you this? Because, while I won't show my photo online anymore, I can let you hear my voice. Yes, my singing voice. Grading my own singing in the "recordings," I find it too ordinary, but like the blind man before Jesus' hand said, "I can see!," so I can now say, "I can sing." Whatever you might think of me if you read updates fairly regularly, this should shatter your image. The only consolation I've got to resort to is: it was only my first recording, and without voice-enhancement machines or studio-quality equipment. But that's what all the losers on American Idol say.
I can't upload the song to the internet from here; I plan on dropping in to the Internet cafe today, so tomorrow you should have one of the rose songs, about Jesus, "like a rose, trampled on the ground, You took the fall." I think the song is called, "Above all Powers."
Just so you know, the Iranian leadership is concerned about another Israeli flare-up in Gaza: "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Israel and world leaders [today] that attacks on Gaza would cost 'too much,' referring to Israeli air strikes on the Gaza strip [yesterday]."
If the same took place from New Jersey into Washington, Crowley would not be speaking quite the same as he speaks on the behalf of Obama:
"...'The Israelis have a right to self defense,' [U.S. State Dept. spokesperson Philip] Crowley said during a press conference in the wake of a recent bout of violence, after Israel war planes struck the Gaza Strip in retaliation to rockets fired into Israeli territory.
'At the same time, as we have said many times, we don't ultimately think there is a military solution to this,' he said, adding that 'this is why we have been pressing the Palestinians and the Israelis to get into proximity talks that can lead to direct negotiations.'"
The problem is, these talks about the talks to have talks to end all talks are putting us all to sleep while the evil axis continues to build a war plot, hopefully with a nuclear weapon. If I were the leader of Israel right now, Gaza would no longer exist as a political entity. It would become a part of Israel; I would take it away, jail Hamas operatives, and let the chips fall where they may. I would let Iran and the Syrians do their best, but for God's sake I would deal with it once and for all, not trusting Americans or Rothschilds, but Him alone.
In order to secure God on my side, freedom of immorality in Israeli society would be eradicated. God's Law first before the will of man. I'd then have to deal with liberal Israelis seeking to stop me, but I'd do what was necessary to give the nation to God-honoring peoples rather than to the likes of the non-religious. When, in all of history, did God fail to make a man-of-God leader of Israel succeed against all his and His enemies? The problem has always been that ungodly men have ruled the nation.
Obama -- with his circle of Westerners -- is for just such a man in Israel. Not only will Obama and his ilk not give Biblical Christians in America an iota of power if they can help it, but the Illuminati will not give power to right-winger Israelis so far as it can help it. God awaits a man who will lead the nation by His power, and that's when He acts.
The sin of Israel is that its leaders are too afraid, too faithless, too stupid and/or sinful to allow such a man to rule, and they instead look to the support of America. What Israel needs is an Ahmadinejad-like radical but looking to the correct God and acting accordingly. Without doubts, plodding on in the tearing down the altars of Baal, rendering the pagans unfit to hold power, pointing the peoples to the one and Mighty God. THEN HE WILL MAKE FOR THE VICTORY against the Ahmadinejads of the Arabs world, no USofA needed whatsoever. Soon, the powerful Song of God shall pour out on the world. ONE who sings a song from Heaven shall unleash and drown out the songs of the world. Shall we all learn to sing so that we can sing with Him on that day? Selah. Right?
"Israel now considers the prospect of another war with the Hamas regime all but inevitable.
Officials said the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been briefed by the military on the renewed Hamas threat from the Gaza Strip. They said most of the Cabinet agreed that Israel must be prepared for a major operation in the Gaza Strip.
'Sooner or later we will liquidate the military regime of the pro-Iranian Hamas which controls the Gaza Strip,' Israeli Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said."
I think the Israeli Defense Force read my update yesterday and sent out the word to take Gaza immediately. Oh wait. The article was written March 31. Ah well wishful thinking.
The article suggests that the Iran axis is attempting to trigger another war: "On March 27, two Israeli soldiers were killed in an ambush claimed by both Hamas and the Iranian-sponsored Islamic Jihad." That came after months of Hamas denials; it started a minor scuffle, and there was another days after with Israel retaliating harder. Israel was already getting word out that another war was imminent. Do Israeli leaders know something? Rather than being a threat to Hamas, is this preparing the Israelis for another war?
Hey Putin, since you're advocating that Israel grant Palestinians their own nation, why don't you give Dagestan to the Muslims while you're at it? Hypocrite! You promise a hard line against Dagestani terrorists but forbid Israel to do the same to Hamas. Hypocrite! You install your own Muslim puppet in Chechnya who forbids opposing Muslims the sovereignty of that country, yet you cheer yourself on in 2010 because you get to lead the Quartet effort for forcing a Palestinian state within Israeli borders.
Hey Obama. Before forcing Israel to give up a chunk of it's country, why don't you try to separate a chunk of America -- how'bout Texas? -- for a sovereign Christian nation where any Christians can go live if they choose, with their own laws and police force? What's that? You'd rather jail them, or worse, before you let that happen? I see. I truly see. I have news for you, Obama. America will become TOTALLY Christ-ian soon, and liberals will need to go underground, pretend they don't exist for fear of being discovered by the vast Christian majority.
And that's why the devil will try to eliminate Christians before God can set them up as the global majority. But it's exactly because the devil will try to eliminate them that God will be justified in taking globalism away from those who support the devil. On who's side are you on, Obama? Can you tell us how many Biblical Christians you have on your administrative team? Can you tell us how you desire to satisfy the concerns of Biblical American Christians? We have yet to hear a peep out of you on that matter. You're not afraid of what the liberals would say if you stuck up for Christians, are you? Oh, yes, you need the liberals to hold power, Mr. Obama. I see, I truly do see.
If it takes many years to discover a Catholic priests child-molestation tendencies, image how many priests have not yet been caught. How do we explain that the Catholic priesthood is a magnet for such horned men? What could make them like that if they're not like that when they first become priests. I think two things. First, the priesthood has been a homo club from the start or near-start, and second, God will not support the priesthood with His Spirit lest the Vatican be thought by the Elect to be a truly God-driven organization. If a catholic priest suddenly puts on God's eyes because God chooses him, that man will be escorted OUT from the Catholic church, in my opinion.
Like me, for example, who was raised a Catholic to a mild degree. I recall as a child how silly it was to kneel down and confess sins to a priest behind a dark screen. I had to make up sins just to satisfy him. And then during Mass they would shake this "sacred" container full of water and smoke and sprinkle the people at the front of the church with it. When entering the church, one had to dab a finger into "sacred" water out from a tap. At times my mother would light candles for the dead, as if the living could make a difference in the fate of the dead by any means. The Catholic church is FILLED with systems and practices not outlined in the Bible. It made them up as history went along, and the people in the pews didn't know the difference because they don't read their Bibles. M
My mother has never read the Bible, but she had statuettes of Mary in her house -- until I rebuked her about it. She still has small pictures of Mary in several places of the home, and hoped that her picture on the toilet tank in the upper bathroom would somehow convert my children to Catholicism. She really does believe that Mary has special powers. She attends her church and helps out in the activities, and I hope that God will save such believers in spite of how I feel about the catholic leadership/organization that they fawn over.
My father would not read the Bible at my recommendation; he would shun and even insult whatever I said to him that came from the Bible. But then his Catholic church started to emphasize the Bible, at which time he began to read it. It made a big difference in how he acted. But the spiritual ailment is this, that my father will listen to the pope or a priest no matter what they might tell him, but if you or I share the Word with him in order to have a fellowship with him, it's all nonsense in his mind. People have been conditioned to reject whatever Biblical types say, yet they take for gospel much, including dastardly Evolution, that comes from the mouth of a moral-like liberal. My father loves Obama.
I'm telling you this because globalists will enlist Catholics of the sort I've just described. Obama has one for a vice-president, and has chosen I-don't-know-how-many-others for his administrative posts. Joe Biden is probably the first reason that my father loves Obama.
We must admit that Biblical Christians are some of the least noble batch of humans on the planet. They don't carry the aura of dignitaries, but resemble the poor and powerless. They look homely and "straight" before pagan types. But this is because God chooses the lowly and meek, the quieter ones, those wise enough not to relish sinful parties. At the proper time, these lowly ones will become the new leaders, but we have yet to see what attitude they will carry as they lead. I don't think they will be Led to be like the Republicans. I don't think that Republicans represent the movement of God in the last days. I don't know that God would like to operate through any political party.
I hope you don't think I'm criticising different groups just to have a little fun. I wouldn't use my parents as an example for a fun purpose. The battle lines are being drawn up for a future conflict. Recent years have been a battle for the minds and souls of the peoples. If you've been watching, you know who is on who's side.
The Middle East is one battle involving the anti-Christ, and Westernism is another battle involving the dragon cult's Enlightenment, and Liberalism. The dragon cult brought "light" to Europe, the idea that there is no God, and that man can achieve, all on his lonesome, the perfect society...if only the peoples will put-off the idea of waiting for a God to create that perfect society. With both sides claiming that a perfect society cannot be had with the other side, one side has to go. That's exactly God's thinking too.
Will you choose the side that appears to be winning, the side with dignitaries and other powerful persons? That's one lie that God will permit to blanket the peoples of the planet. Those who have been Chosen by Him know that lie. Patience. Let the dignitaries and O-peacocks roll on, but let the Faithful remain steadfast, consistent, sincere.
God's power is not to lord things over others, to use the people for the life of the government. Even the Government of Christ will be concerned for the people. Liberals and Communists together know that this is the way to succeed in a perfect society, but they have failed in producing a government for the people. They have discovered that it's no use; their own kind are wolves in sheep's clothing. Whenever they achieve powerful positions, they abuse and serve self while they have the "golden opportunity." A man alone (i.e. without God's Spirit) cannot bring himself to such a high deed as to serve others all his life, especially when he comes to believe that the reason for his powerful position has to do with his own craftiness/intelligence/sacredness. But the Son of God CAN serve others all His life long. Which side do you think is the wiser choice? Which society seems best to you?
The liberal man who has liberated himself from God, before being elected, says, "Elect me, and I will do such and such good for all the people." Then, after he's elected, he thinks only for his own good, how to get elected yet again next time around. He likes being praised as president too much to go back to the lower life he had before. A man alone is incapable of a heart for others at all times, or even a quarter of the time, maybe not even a tenth of the time. As time rolls on, that small fraction of concern for others evolves into something altogether selfish. This is what politics does to people who succeed in politics. It becomes all about them, how they can use their power to win deals, push doors, make miracles out of thin air if possible, go down in history books, achieve glory.
Unless we Christians fill up on God's gasoline, we too will tend to think for self alone. The oil of the Spirit doesn't go up in price, it's always as free as your tongue. You can speak to God and get free gasoline. You can say, "God, how can you help me help lowly Doug over in Petty Hills? I beg of you, God, don't let Doug down at his Lonesome Corral. Please, help Doug's life, give him sunshine, fresh air, and wings. I can't bare the thought of his drowning at Black Lagoon. What can I do to make him walk on water? Think of something, God..."
Even as you speak, God's gasoline spout is stuck into your hip and is pumping fuel inside you, for you asked the right thing. And your Heavenly Bank Account is going up. Then, when you happen to need His Help, he'll catch you even before the evil shows it's ugly face. He won't make you a world power as the Bank Account goes up, for that would tend to drain your gas tank and decrease your Bank Account, but you will enjoy your food and His company.
What is this we hear from the Kenneth Copelands of the world? Chase money because the man of God with money has all the faith in God, while the poor are weak-faithed? God forbid. Rather, the lowly Elect have pains and sorrows, poverty or loneliness because the devil and his system thwart them, and because God allows growing pains to strengthen them...until the Rest. Ahh, the Rest, when birds take flight in the fresh breeze of Eternity, never looking back again to this miserable society, forgetting the wars, forgetting the fat-tax man, forgetting the towering freight ship, forgetting the streets laden with signage and parking fees.
Why would we chase the money when we are promised wings? What can money buy that compares to being flung by the catapult of God into the open sky? Who has ever been to the Thrill in the Sky? Who has ever seen the Wonders on the Other Side? Only when we lack faith in these things do Christians start to chase the money. The Kenneth Copelands of the world have lost faith. It is they who have weak faith. And they attract even those with strong faith, to destroy their faith and turn their hearts to money and this world's delicacies. I know, I watched one who I love fall prey to it.
That person drove an old vehicle but then bought the Cadillac of SUVs, claiming that it was a gift from God. That person lived in a modest home but then bought a dream house worth a few millions. That person had a Pentecostal preacher as father, and when that person became a solid Christian, strong faith was led the wrong way by the Hinns and Copelands of the Pentecostal world. Might that person be you?
This is a conundrum. Liberals hate Pentecostals, and yet God does too if they're of the Hinn type. They are in a field of their own, and we have yet to see whose side the better part of them will take in the last days. As you probably know, Pentecostals and other charismatics tend to be pre-tribulationists. Might they be enlisted by the dignitaries of the world to persecute post-tribbers? Does the O-lightenment have his all-seeing eye on the Pentecostals of money-persuasion?
What's sad about that ending is that post-tribbers will dearly need the money and large properties of wealthy believers. We're hoping that they come to their senses and "turn-coat" to post-tribulationism. We're hoping that there are ZERO Copelands in the post-tribulation world now, and later. Use your money to buy your way higher into the Thrill in the Sky. Blessed are those found to be feeding God's poor when He returns. I get a consistent stream of emails from frightened poor believers asking how they can possibly make it. I tell them that God has wealthy believers that they can latch-on to. We trust that there will not be any wealthy post-tribbers who want to take their wealth to the Thrill.
I see you, wealthy post-tribber. I see you acting in secret. You are either making plans for others, or asking yourself whether your hard-earned money will ever go to those who didn't earn it. Some of you worked all-life long to get what you have now, and must you just give it all away to the stomachs of other people that you don't even know? It's your choice: grow your Bank Account so that, where the Thrill is, there will be your heart and soul also. Or, keep your money and let it go to where your heart and soul will no longer ever be.
: I know it's a hard choice, but we poor trust that you will make the righteous decision because you love God, and because, while you don't know us, God does know us. Think about how much you will be loved by those you literally save. You can be a little sacrificing christ with your money, or buy the Cadillac of SUVs and drive proud down the road to church and store...while all the poor think you're a jerk for looking away as you drive by.
I know it's a tough choice, either to join in with the poor or evade them for the higher classes. The poor can be such a drag on your life. But not if you become their mini-savior. They will then be your personal projects, and there will be no end to the free gas that you can fill up on. Why pay to get a mere 12 miles to the gallon in your SUV when you can get unlimited free gas, and personal projects galore where you are the mini-king of your Beloved Estates. Your doors will always be open to those who come in and use you for your wealth, but who cares when your Bank Account will always be growing to heights that your eyesight cannot attain. I regret to say, the choice does not belong to the poor.
I know a man who gave $5,000 to an old couple without an income. And the man of the family purchased a flat-screen TV whereas the donor thought they would purchase something catering more to the spirit of the sacrificial donation. But the donor did not resent giving the gift because he loved that old couple, and their joy was his joy, even if their joy was a waste of their time. But then, to some poor folk, "wasting" time on this earth until the Return is a precious need. I understand that too. I only wish that seeing time pass wasn't so much on satanic television or Fox News.
I knew a wealthy Christian couple with missions experience living on a large ranch worth millions. One day he invited me over to ask if I'd be interested in working with him in the stock market. He opened his door to a long secret room and led me in. A huge flat-screen television was on the wall at one end of the room, and a stock-market channel was blaring away. His desk was at the other end. He said he made a lot of money for missionary purposes using the stock market. It all looked so wrong. He sensed my feelings, I think. Soon after, he had cancer. I don't know what happened to his money if and when he passed away. I really loved that man.
I am confident that Christians with large estates and acreages will become post-tribulationists instantly in the thick of the skincode. Therefore, do your best to get to know these wealthy believers now, not because they are above you, but because they are your servants by the command and expectation of God. Otherwise, they are not in Christ, but hanging by one arm to the bobbing Doom Plank at sea.
Money does not make a person above the one without money. The one without money is more ready-packed for the Thrill-bound train. The poor are standing at the train depot, looking now and again at their watches to see whether the Thundering Train will be on time. The rich are busier playing the latest games or shining their hats with the latest hatshine. Which of the two are in reality higher up? Which of the two are closer to Heaven? Which of the two will fill the Train first for the best seats. But the rich one who serves to poor will get to drive that Train, like a cherished son on a father's knee.
As promised yesterday, here's Above All. If you haven't heard this popular artist (I can't remember his name) so that you can't make us apart, I'm the one with less-than-perfect notes and no-stardom capabilities. I've just listened to it, and at times I can't tell myself from the artist, I'm singing as loud as I can, so I'm in there somewhere.
I like high-feeling and power parts best...which is why the vocal chords are damaged in what I think is symptomized by so-called "laryngospasm." I gotta say, I have had so much enjoyment singing that I recommend it for everyone. It lifts me into another dimension.
May as well upload another while I'm at it. Ever heard of Philip(s), Craig and Dean? I think they're from Oklahoma. Near the end of their song, someone got hoarse trying to hit "darkest night," and it wasn't any of them. I happen to be a little more audible in the latter half of the last stanza, at "that weeeeee-ee may be saved, that weeeeeeeee-eee may have life, to find our way in the [darkest night]," but I just never have what it takes to finish those last two words; they just might be computer enhanced for those old rockers. But if not, all praise to them for getting it out without cracking the glass.
I was hoping to find some results of the al-Sadr vote today, but so far nothing. There isn't any other news to speak of so far today, unless you want to hear the same old on the Israeli war threat and more Iraq bombings. Instead, have a nicer day.
NEXT IRAQ UPDATE
If you've come to this book beginning at this webpage,
see the rest of the Gog-Iraq story in PART 2, accessed from the
Table of Contents