Updates Index

This week's science lesson will teach that leading cosmologists have become lying buffoons in protection of their evolutionary view of the creation. What are the chances that water bodies are orbiting the sun right now? Nil. It's a scam. Only a clown in a circus would want to convince you that comets are made of water. Yup, that's exactly what NASA's jokers teach (and Creationists, not knowing any better, follow along on this one). But why? What are they trying to protect? What are they hiding that they should invent this ridiculous theory?

Let's face it; comets are rock bodies like planets and asteroids. It is ludicrous to imagine that there was some body of water in our solar system that got all broke up into the many comets. Let's face it, this is a scam. We only need to figure out why they schemed this scam. I have a pretty good idea. It has to do with the need in their big-bang theory for atoms that all attract one another, otherwise atoms wouldn't have been able to come together to form stars. Now we're on it.

Their first problem is that gas atoms all repel one another, and so they schemed a scam by declaring all atoms to be in constant motion while they attract one another, and this motion (atoms all banging against atoms forever, non-stop) is what gives gas atoms the appearance of repelling one another. Say it isn't so, but it is: they violated the laws of physics by declaring gas atoms to never cease in their flying about space, even though they know that colliding objects tend toward losing all motion. So, accept the fact: atoms are not racing around, the evolutionists have it wrong, and gas atoms really do repel one another...meaning that stars cannot form when atoms fly from a big-bang spot.

It is because I came to learn that evolutionists are nuts that I discovered the real source of gravity. Bonus. They want all atoms to possess a gravity force, and they say that gravity has its source purely in atoms. This is their attempt to get the proto-star material to attract itself into blobs that then became stars. The only blob is the evolutionist's brain, for two atoms in any space do not attract one another if that's all there is. We've got to stick to the visible facts. To get gas atoms to stick in a space, you've got to force them close together, but there was no canister with a piston in the early big-bang space.

Gravity attracts all atoms by repelling some of their electrons. It's that simple and instant. The gravity source, and all heat, is in free electrons. Heat is when electrons enter substances, and gravity is their negative charge. It's so simple. Wherever there is more heat, there's more gravity. Gravity cannot produce stars from a big bang, which is why evolutionists rejected the truth on behalf of killing God. The big bang is the attempted murder of God.

Gravity can form only when electrons are freed from their captured state upon atoms. Planetary / stellar gravity can form only after atoms have come together to form planets / stars. Until stars form, there can be no stellar gravity. Minus gravity in early, big-bang history, atoms could lose electrons only if someone hit them with a hammer. There was no hammer in space way back then. The situation needs a Creator to first create the stars and planets, and then to form a mechanism by which atoms continually lose electrons; otherwise, cosmic bodies have no gravity.

The sun is a body filled with released electrons scattering as the solar wind. Although the wizards of Oort falsely claim that the solar wind travels at 400 km/second (it's perhaps a tenth that speed), it cannot raise a single piece of dust on the moon even though the moon has no atmosphere to protect a piece of dust from the solar wind. Now you know why they created comets made of ice, for they see the comet tail streaming from the comet body, knowing that the solar wind cannot scrape rock off of a comet. Creationists may feel powerless to disagree until they have a better way to explain the comet tail. But Creationists should be wiser. They should call evolutionists out for this fantasy.

Evolutionists even know that the solar wind cannot erode ice, which is another reason that they chose ice, because it melts and allows them to deceive you. They say: "recent studies have shown that the ice of a comet is covered by a crust." Achem. If it's covered in a crust (rock, I assume), how do they know there's a body of ice inside? Shouldn't they view the interior as what they see on the exterior? If they were good scientists and men of honor, yes. But these are rats.

Palease, don't make me laugh. Comet tails must be formed in another way other than melted, atomized ice pushed along by the solar wind. Just ask the cold space at which comet tails begin to form. My discovery, fullproof, that gravity consists of free electrons, means that gravity repels electrons. I can't tell you how well that idea sits with me. I have never heard of anything so logical, so feel-right. Gravity repels electrons. Electrons are anti-gravity particles. Wow. It's the key to the virgin room. I feel that I'm the first person ever to set foot into that room. It's very lonely in there. The evolutionists would say that I'm in the nut house.

There is abundant proof for this claim, and the comet is one of them. As the rock nears the sun, atoms IN (not just on) the rock shed electrons, and this forms the tail, always pointed away from the sun because that's where gravity repels them. Wikipedia's article on comets does say that comets shed electrons, but the way in which they explain it is bogus. Cosmologists are whackos, and have been that way for half a century. Prior to that, since Einstein, they had been merely wrong, but lately they lost their minds. They always speak in jargon a few nutty levels above our heads hoping we won't be able to catch them in their lies. The upper-level talk is nothing but psycho-babble, most of the time, because they started out with error, winking, and then together piled error on error to support and protect the original error.

The power of the solar wind can't blow away gas atoms 50 miles above the earth's surface. Why should it blow a comet's water molecules away when the comet is further than the earth? The upper air atoms on earth are barely held to the planet by earth gravity. The atmospheric ceiling is that because the highest layers are nearly able to escape into space. The upper air atoms are repelled spaceward by all atoms beneath them. If the solar wind can't send them away from the planet, neither can it send water molecules away at the distance of Mars or Jupiter. In a comet, the tail forms long before it's visible to our eyes. If the tail appears at the distance of Mars, the tail may have been formed from as far off as Jupiter. It's cold out there.

The comet's material is speeding into the solar wind at about 20 times slower than the solar wind. There is no way that the mere electrons in the solar wind will be able to counteract the incoming water molecules, for the latter are huge in mass as compared to electrons. Water molecules are way better than 20 times the mass of electrons. As total force is mass x velocity, water molecules at the speed of comets will push electrons back toward the sun rather than vice-versa. This is probably half or more the reason that NASA claimed protons to be an equal part of the solar wind with electrons. I don't trust NASA. It would invent protons in the solar wind just to explain the comet tail. NASA would argue that because comet material is blown away by the solar wind, there has just got to be some heavy particles in the solar wind. That's often how cosmic science works, not on logic or observable facts necessarily. It's fine to draw up theories, but evolutionists call theories for facts in hasty recklessness, depending on how badly they want to murder God.

According to their own theories, a water molecule is nine times heavier than a proton. Therefore, in order for the wizards to argue that the solar wind blows the water away rather than vice versa, they have got to argue that there are many more times the number of protons than water molecules.

In my theory on the release of solar electrons, the weight of solar atoms pressing on the solar core destroys atoms in the latter. Destroyed atoms are destroyed protons, technically, and so they lose their entire compliment of electrons. Easy enough to understand. I have no idea what happens to the destroyed hydrogen protons, but assume that some of them are forced into outer space with the electrons. I assume that destroyed protons are in pieces. We've heard of the discovery of new particles in wasteful machines built to smash atoms. Did they every think that they are witnessing pieces of protons rather than new, whole particles? Probably, but that's not exciting enough, and it wrecks their view of atoms. They don't believe in broken protons.

The coma surrounds the comet, consisting of material that flows away from the sun at all times, yet initially existing between the comet and the sun at all times. Did you hear that? There's a wild explosion of material BETWEEN the comet and the sun. How can water molecules / dust particles get CLOSER to the sun than the comet body, if the solar wind blows them off the comet and away from the sun? Do these water molecules come with trampolines? If not, how are they jumping toward the sun? If they first jump toward the sun, why are they then blown back away from the sun?

If "jump" is not the proper word to use, what is? We can't say that the water emits sunward, for there is no reason for water atoms to emit at all, if its merely melted ice. How many raindrops would you see jumping forward off your front windshield if you're moving 30 mps (100,000 mph)? If the solar wind has power over the comet's water to send it away from the sun, how does the water get that "small" distance toward the sun in the first place? Ahh, the dreamers will think of something, handing it to us in upper-level jargon, and who are we to argue, mere peasants. The king of Oort supports them, and we are powerless to disagree.

Wrong. There is something seething from the comet surface, ejecting in all directions, including toward the sun. It's the electrons. Every atom within the comet is releasing electrons simultaneously. They are crowded into the atomic spaces, and moving through all the spaces, exuding wildly from every square inch of the comet surface. Once into space at the surface, the electrons scatter in all directions under their inter-repulsion forces, including sunward. You see, I'm all alone in my virgin room, because I know I am correct about this, and because the rats refuse to join me, bonus.

There is no other force out there in space, aside from the solar wind, except solar gravity. If the tail is not due to the solar wind, fill in the blank. The comet tail is the cosmologist's executioner. The negative gravity that he rejected has come round to kill his fellow rats. It's just a matter of time now. Science is gaining the tools and the extra knowledge to obliterate their entire atomic model. Cosmology will never be the same again. Evolutionists will go down as the distorters of science with evil motives. They are murderers of God first, and scientists last.

The sun is a continuous explosion. When electrons are freed from atoms in close proximity to themselves, they scatter under their own inter-repulsion forces. That electron scattering is always the definition of an explosion. Electrons push everything in their path, because they are smaller than atoms. When they exit the comet, they scatter forcefully sunward, but slow down until their forces of motion equals that of solar gravity and the solar wind combined, at which time they turn and begin to accelerate away from the sun at the outer edges of the coma. The coma is therefore a spray of electrons...but not of electrons alone.

My atomic model taught me the definition of boiling liquid. A heat source introduces electrons into water. The electrons stream through the spaces of the water molecules, mainly in the upward direction, and they literally knock water molecules off the water surface as the definition of vapor formation. When the passage of electrons through the water reaches zero resistance, one cannot build the number of electrons further within the liquid, for no matter that more electrons are forced into the water, the same number simultaneously leave. That's the boiling point. Until then, electrons have "trouble" (resistance) passing through water. At the boiling point, they pass through water with maximum ease, because they form steady streams forceful enough to counter, atomic attraction, the weight of water, and the weight of air on the water surface (the only three things causing them trouble).

The point of all that was the knock-out punch that streaming electrons have in dislodging atoms from the water surface, and sending them into space. It's no more complicated than wind or water erosion. In the same way, electrons streaming out from within a comet, while making the temperature of the comet better than its rock's melting temperature, cause rock atoms to be carried into space. So, the tail is made of both electrons and rock atoms. However, the fact that all interior atoms are loosing electrons (causing extreme pressure), and due to the ferocity that we may witness in the coma, it becomes apparent that electron erosion at the surface cause whole pieces of rock, not merely single electrons, to go free.

So, the tail emits light because small particles of rock (dust) are losing electrons, and more so with closer passage to the sun. The pieces of rock stay close to the comet because the solar wind has virtually no push-effect upon them, for they are attracted by solar gravity. The small rocks and large fall to the sun at the same acceleration / speed as the comet body as a whole, this we know to be fact. As the pieces get smaller with electron erosion, they are finally driven away from the sun, by the solar wind, to form the tail, and even single atoms in the tail continue to emit light for as long as they are still moving closer to the sun.

Yes, even though the tail has dust particles moving away from the sun (in relation to the comet body), most of the tail is in fact moving closer than the sun. The tip of the tail will cease to move closer to the sun eventually, as the solar wind decelerates it, afterwhich it will accelerates the dust away from the sun.

The solar wind is the light-wave medium. Evolutionists committed themselves to the photon view of light, another mistake, before they had discovered the solar wind. Oops, they had said that there is no light-wave medium, and therefore they invented the photon...but even after they discovered the solar wind, they failed to admit their photon error, or to call the wind the light-wave medium. Light is defined, in truth, as the emission of electrons into the light-wave medium, which is a sea of free electrons. The energy of an emitted electron carries across the sea of electrons. It's just so easy to understand. It's just so logical and compelling. The scientists prior to the evolutionists had this correctly figured; they just didn't know what the light-wave medium was made of, for electrons were not yet discovered.

So, when solar gravity repels electrons off of the comet rock, light is formed because electrons lost from atoms are emitted electrons. They spray into the solar wind and form waves of energy to travel through it. That's why the comet tail emits light, but the dopes who got it all wrong will tell us that the comet tail, so bright that it's visible from earth, is merely the reflection of sunlight off the water and dust particles. But the tail is so thin with material that this seems nutty right off the bat. It's the best they've got, so long as they reject negative gravity. They will go to their graves rejecting it.

Electrons ejected from atoms, and into the atomic spaces of any material, is the correct definition of heat. The electrons add no weight to any heated material, because electrons have no weight (anything repelled by gravity can have no weight).

Atoms having lost electrons are called, ions. Wikipedia: "While the solid nucleus of comets is generally less than 50 km across, the coma may be larger than the Sun, and ion tails have been observed to extend 3.8 astronomical units (570 Gm; 350×106 mi)." Surely, the buffoons understand that the mere melting of ice cannot accomplish this monstrous thing.

Let's imagine the comet motionless in the ballpark of Mars. You are standing beside it way out there. You are waiting for it to melt. Hmm, it's cold out there. Do you imagine that the comet will flare up into a giant coma anytime soon merely from incoming sunlight? Ask the buffoons this question: why should a giant coma flare up just because this comet rock is racing sunward? If it won't form a coma and a long tail sitting stationary at the Mars orbit, or at the Earth orbit, or even at the Venus orbit, why do they think a coma and a tail will flare up if the comet is moving??? They have no answer.

Planets don't move sunward, and planets do not form comas or tails. But when things move sunward, they do. Why do you think that is? Now you know. You heard it from a guy sitting all alone in a virgin room.

Surely, they applied their minds for seeking the comet truth and found it, yet they rejected it. Surely, cosmologists realized that, if sunlight can't explain the coma and tail, the only alternative is solar gravity. Surely, they realized that solar gravity is a negative energy, sending the comet electrons flying, and forming the ions of the tail. Surely, these imposters are cruel and ugly on the inside, wicked and greedy, the rats of the human race.

Electrons are extremely powerful particles. They alone cause the nuclear explosion. Destroy the uranium proton, and out fly the compressed electrons. All electrons captured within atoms are compressed. They are not orbiting the protons, for only the fool believes such a thing. Each proton has countless electrons, and the pull of the proton upon electrons compresses them tightly, especially the inner layers. Every atom has only one proton, the only logical view, the obvious fact, for science has proven that positive repels positive. You cannot have two or more protons in contact with each other at the center of any atom. The buffoons have done it again, violated even the laws of their own sciences, for they are cruel and ugly on the inside.

They ought to be jailed because they are dangerous to mankind. God will rid the universe of these types by cruel death, justified. They are trying to lead everyone to Hell, this is no joke. NASA is lead by them. Christians need to start thinking along these terms. Instead, some Christians love NASA. What's wrong with them? If Trump loves NASA, do Christians follow along? Is that the full extent of their loyalty to Christ?

Planets don't have comet tails because they don't release electrons. In order for the sun to send electrons flying, an object needs to be moved toward the sun. If it moves constantly closer, the density of freed electrons within it will build. If it stops dead in its track, in space, electrons will flow out for only so long, and then cease to flow. Only when the comet resumes its travel toward the sun will more electrons stream out. The moon therefore forms an invisible tail when it moves toward the sun for about 14 days, and then re-loads with electrons as it moves away from the sun for about 14 days. It reloads with solar-wind electrons, because atoms depleted of electrons will re-attract them. To put it another way, the moon heats up on the interior as it nears the sun, and cools off as it moves away. When cooling, it re-attracts electrons from its hot (sunny) side, the side that's bombarded by solar-wind electrons. The lunar tail is "brightest" (but still invisible to our eyes) as it approaches what we call the new-moon phase, for the build-up of interior electrons is greatest at the end of the 14 day trip toward the sun.

The moon gets heavier when it loses electrons, and therefore speeds up a little over those 14 days. Gravity works by blowing electrons away on all atoms, and simultaneously getting a bite on the positive charge that opens up on all atoms. Yes, the negative energy of gravity makes the atoms net positive to itself so that its negative can attract the positive of the atoms. It's so easy to understand, and so logical, but this won't help the big bang, wherefore it's rejected. As any object is moved closer to the gravity source, it does get heavier; scientists know this. My discovery is that atoms get heavier because gravity forms a greater positive charge on atoms.

In the big-bang theory, they need a gravity source to form stars, yet there can be no gravity source until the star is at least partially formed. That's their problem right off the bat; just read them to see what buffoons they can be. Once you come to conclude in Special Creation, by God, you can see where they make fools of themselves. You can see them inventing "facts" to explain the inexplicable. We might feel sorry for them, except that they are intent on murdering God and all of humanity together. In their anger against God, they wish for you to sacrifice your eternal life with God, and your children's too. This is the shameful, naked fact, but to absolve themselves from this hideous crime, they claim that there is no God, and that it's counter-productive to teach that there is. This is the end-time illness.

Let's look at another ridiculous theory that they invented. The photon. They rejected the light-wave medium starting with Einstein's work with electrons. When they discovered the speed of light, so incredibly fast, they wrongly claimed that photons travel that fast. The speed of light can be explained without folly when it's defined as energy passing through a wave medium, but to have single photon particles, so utterly small, traveling at 186,000 mps, is ludicrous. Imagine the force behind a poor, defenseless photon to send it that fast. How big and how fast does a baseball bat need to swing to send that poor little thing around the earth seven times in one second? It's laughable, but this is the junk they feed us.

Imagine the force on the speedy photon when it crashes into an air atom. Yet it survives? You have got to be kidding me. Is this a cartoon? And how do solar photons get through millions and millions of air atoms, to our eyes deep within the atmosphere. Or, how can photos crash into so many air atoms and yet retain their great speed or straight lines? There is no answer. The idiots win the prize for the massacre of logical human thought.

The buffoons formed an answer. They made the atom as shy as possible of material. Instead of claiming the truth, that atoms are surrounded by many electrons, covered jam-packed with them, they assigned each atom a few electrons only. Air atoms were assigned 14 or 16 electrons only, all very small so that atoms was declared to be almost all space. It makes it easier for photons to pass through to us, yet, even so, sun-delivered photons are bound to strike the air's electrons or protons on their way to the ground. And, finally, when the photons hit the ground, they are predicted to dive deep into rock and soil until they come to a stop as dead and crumbled as can be. But, nope, the cartoonists invented ways to explain those problems too.

Their other problem, upon inventing atoms with few electrons, is that they had to set the electrons in orbit around the protonic core, an impossibility, and they knew it to be impossible, but the alternative was unacceptable to them. Then, when photons crash into electrons, instead of knocking them out of orbit, the electrons jump to a higher orbit no matter what the direction of the crash. You can see how ridiculous this is, for the photon is traveling so fast that it's going to knock the electron out of orbit instead. So, they made the photon extremely small, as if electrons weren't small enough, to minimize the force of the crashes.

Plus, they imagined that electrons were able to resend photons back out at exactly 186,000 mps. You have just got to understand what clowns rule science departments, and here you have it. Even when photons contact solid objects, they yet manage to bounce away at the same speed by which they crashed, impossible. They have had plenty of time, since the discovery of the solar wind, to do away with the photon, but this involves the wholesale tear-down of their atomic model, and they don't want to look like fools thereby, especially in the midst of their fighting on behalf of evolution. They need, most of all, to be respected as the modern wise men, and so they can't afford to look like they don't know what they are talking about.

The solar wind is the light-wave medium. It enters our atmosphere, and acts as heat there. The electrons of the solar wind is the pure source of heat, it's so simple. As light's impulses move across solar-wind electrons, it pushes electrons into the ground, or into whatever object is in the path of light, and heats those things. This is so simple and without problems, yet they resist it, opting instead to be the promoters of the dizzy electron and the ever-whizzing, unstoppable, magic photon.

At 186,000 mph, we should be hearing photons screech past our ears as they crash through air atoms. Surely, they crash into protons too. Surely, photons crash into the free electrons that constitute the solar wind within our atmosphere. How possibly does light travel in a straight line, with all of the crashes of photons into these particles, by the time they penetrate dozens of miles of atmosphere? Forget it. But they also travel, supposedly, 93 million miles through the solar wind, without losing speed through all the crashes with wind particles; are the wise men nuts?

It doesn't matter how small one envisions a photon, in comparison to an electron, in order to explain the photon's path through the solar wind. The smaller its made, the worse its crash into the much-larger electron. There is no other word for it but a "crash." It's destructive. And it's going to change the direction of the photon, clearly. Scientists are not permitted to appeal to some magic taking place when photons crash into solar-wind electrons. If they want to be respectable, they have got to claim that there are destructive crashes taking place that slow particles down in the meantime. If the theory doesn't work thereby, move on to another one, the wave.

Light is a wave through the solar wind. Waves carry on past atoms without much problem because the outer edges of atoms are electrons too, as is the solar wind. Light waves just circle round the air atoms and carry on toward the ground, as water waves circle and carry on past floating objects, for example. Sound waves do the same. Waves lose a little energy when circling round air atoms, which is a good thing, as when One set things up that way so that we don't fry to death from sunlight.

There is a difference between the entry of solar-wind electrons into the atmosphere, and the entry of light. The latter enters the ground beneath our feet, and warms our human environment. The solar wind doesn't reach the ground, but does add electrons to the atmosphere.

Having convinced the world that comets are made of water, the inventors went further, claiming that much or most of earth's water originated from comets. Were they nuts? Yes, as ever. Evolutionists are useless, scheming imbeciles. Go ahead and try to find how near the sun comets travel, how hot it is there, how long the comets remain at those hot temperatures (months), and how many times it's repeated. Go ahead, try to find one evolutionist who admits these problems openly, because the facts are killers of the comet-water theory. The wizards won't advertise that they are demented.

Here's a photo of a comet; doesn't look like ice to me, but the deceivers claim that they can see a wee bit of water, and who are we to disagree with the wizards of Oort?
https://phys.org/news/2016-01-ice-surface-comet-67p.html

Decades after introducing the comet-ice theory, after never seeing a comet close enough to verify the ice, they put this out: "For the first time, scientists have spotted large patches of water ice on the surface of a comet, thanks to instruments aboard the European Space Agency's Rosetta orbiter." LARGE patches of water? It sounds so promising, buy lo, those patches, in the photo, look rinky-dink to me. And wait a minute. If there's a little water on the comet surface, then the surface must be made of something other than water. Oh, wow, am I ever smart. I figured it out without the Wikipedia writer telling me so. Why doesn't the Wikipedia writer stress that non-watery crust? What do you suppose that surface is? The answer tells that comets are not dirty snowballs, doesn't it?

Look, they have seen other comets before, with no water visible: "'First, not finding ice was a surprise; now, finding it is a surprise,' said Murthy Gudipati a planetary scientist..." Ah, they're making it up. They are faking the evidence for water on that one rock. The evolutionists were hard-pressed to keep their snowball alive, so they faked it with a rinky-dink rink on one comet, and spread the news, and we are supposed to celebrate.

That rock doesn't look organic to me, but lookie at this insanity: "The surface of comet 67P, like most comets, is primarily covered by dark organic materials that appear almost black." Ahh, we should have known. They invented organic material along with water in order to serve evidence that comets brought life to earth. But of course, it's just so logical that a God-despising creep would invent such a story.

Ask a modern physicist why hotter air rises in cooler air, but he has no correct answer. If he says that warmer air is lighter, he's technically lying. Go ahead and weigh a gas in a container. Then heat it to see if it gets lighter. It does not. It weighs the same hot or cold. But if you release the hot air from its container, into cold air, the hot air will spread out a little horizontally, with less going downward, and mostly rising. Why do you think heated air rises more than spreading sideways or downward? The evolutionist has no answer, yet he still promotes the impossible.

Let's heat some air in a bottle. What happens as we heat it? The buffoon says that air atoms speed up. That's all. Higher temperature is merely faster air atoms in his view. OK, release these faster air atoms into the cold air. What do we expect to take place? Well, the faster atoms will bash the "colder / slower" atoms harder, speeding them up. In which direction will this occur, up, down or sideways? The buffoon will say that it takes place in every direction equally. In that case, why should the heated atoms rise more than they sink to the ground? As I said, the evolutionist has no answer, yet he still promotes the impossible.

What makes the faster atoms lighter than the slower ones? Nothing. There can be nothing to make a faster atom lighter, but even if it were lighter, there is nothing to dictate that it should rise as opposed to sinking. Modern wise men can't even explain why air atoms rise when air is hotter. But I know the answer.

It's because all atoms have more electrons underneath them, to give them lift, when they are in a hotter environment, for a hotter environment is defined as one having a greater density of electrons. The hotter the air, the thicker the sea of its electrons. You see, when you have the correct view, everything is logically explained. It's only when one begins with error that unsolvable problems persist.

Heat is a material, and heat particles are nothing other than electrons. As gravity repels them upward, they push atoms up. It's so simple to understand, but the fabulously intelligent and enlightened ones are discovered as sheer idiots, liars and imposters, just as God would have it on Judgment Day. If you're wondering why I'm being so corrosive against them, it's because I have no desire to try to get on their good sides, even if they had a good side. They are my enemies because they are God's enemies.

Heat some air by boiling water in a pot. Keep the lid off. The hot air above the pot rises more than it goes sideways, and none of it sinks to your floor. But why? What's causing it to spread sideways? Scattering electrons. You can watch electrons shape the smoke of a fire. Where the smoke goes, that's where the electrons push it. Where the vapor over the pot goes, that's where electrons push the water particles.

When compared with other atoms, the hydrogen atom gets the most lift at any given temperature. It rises fastest and highest. Why? Is it because it's the lightest atom? Don't make me laugh. Why should any atom rise faster just because it's lighter? Does a light brick rise faster than a heavy brick? Gravity pulls the hydrogen atom down, silly, so how can it rise? In the view of the silly dope, air atoms are bashing that one H atom evenly from all directions. How can it rise in that impossible situation???

Ahh, now the light is shining on you. There must be some other force giving atoms lift. If you get enough heat under a brick, it will rise too.

The little hydrogen atom is all alone in space. There you see it, between air atoms all around. The buffoon will tell you what he knows cannot be true. He'll tell you that air atoms are bombarding that poor little hydrogen atom, knocking it around until it's dizzy. It never knows what direction it'll get bumped into next. Bango, a shot from the left. Bango, another shot from the lower right. Bango, a shot from above, and on and on, forever. Nearby hydrogen atoms can be of no help because they too are being sent dizzy. Tell us, liars, why should that poor hydrogen atom rise instead of sinking if it's being bashed from random directions? This question doesn't make the school textbooks, because it's revealing. In reality, air atoms are not bashing around. It's a figment of the evolutionist's imagination.

If we release hydrogen gas in a room, the atoms rise to the ceiling and displace the air up there. It will force air down toward the floor as it takes its place at the ceiling. The room is a sea of electrons, never to be neglected. In water, the larger balloon will get more buoyancy; it will rise in water faster (with more force) than a small balloon because it gets more lift from water pressure. The bottom side of anything in water gets more water pressure than the top side, with the net difference amounting to the upward lift force. The larger the object, the greater the lift in water (not at all meaning that all objects rise in water). The same applies with atoms in the sea of electrons...meaning that hydrogen atoms rise with more force, not because they are the lightest atom, but because they are the LARGEST. The cosmic clown was fooled, because he was intent on murdering God. So, demons led him into the lie, and he went for it hook, line and sinner.

An air balloon does not rise if its air is at the same temperature as the air. My theory predicts that a heated balloon can rise in air even if it's not permitted to grow larger (to get less dense with inner air). The added heat alone gives the balloon more lift.

If we put hydrogen into a balloon, it rises in air due to the lighter weight of the gas. Yes, hydrogen gas in a balloon, at any pressure, is 14-15 times lighter than air in a balloon at the same pressure. That is, a balloon of air at the same size as a balloon of hydrogen will be almost 15 times as heavy (ignoring the weight of the balloon skin). But this does not prove that hydrogen atoms are much lighter than nitrogen or oxygen atoms. That's the belief of the bluffoon who tried to murder God, and then went wayward of the realities. He came to believe that gases at equal pressure, or balloons at equal size, all have the same number of atoms, wherefore, as hydrogen is 16 times lighter than oxygen, he concluded that hydrogen atoms are 16 times as light, and therefore much smaller. He got self-fooled because he entered an error into his equation.

As I said, hydrogen gets more lift when it's in the free state (not in a balloon), proving that hydrogen atoms are larger than oxygen atoms. Just accept the facts by reliable evidence. I reason that whatever causes gas atoms to repel one another, they will repel one another more strongly when they are larger. Therefore, hydrogen atoms repel one another with more force than oxygen atoms repel one another. In that case, fewer H atoms in a balloon are needed to create the same pressure (or balloon size). And that's why a balloon with H gas is lighter (it has fewer atoms). And that's why a balloon with hydrogen, even when it's at the same temperature as the air, rises in air.

As air is heavier than the hydrogen balloon, air from every direction will pour under the balloon, simultaneously rising it. So long as the balloon is immersed in air heavier than itself, it will continue to rise. The pouring-in (or rushing-in) of the heavier material under a balloon is exactly why a balloon rises in water.

Heat-particle lift is constant on air atoms, but so is the weight of air above air atoms (that's gravity at work). Air atoms repel one another to boot, seeking to go upward into space, yet gravity keeps them bound to earth. The combination of these three forces determines: 1) how far apart air atoms will be, and, related: 2) the height of the atmosphere as a whole. The only one of the three that changes in force level is the heat factor. In winter, the atmospheric ceiling is lower, and air atoms are closer to one another, for there is less lift on air atoms at that time.

If the kinetic (bash-bash) theory of the science goons is correct, then there could be no air pressure. They know that air pressure is due to the weight of the atmosphere, yet their bash-bash theory has no way to transfer the weight of all atoms to the ground. In their theory, air atoms directly beside the ground are bashing the ground, but the atoms above, all the way to the ceiling, have no affect on the atoms bashing the ground. They are not in contact, at least not in constant contact. How can their combined weights be transferred to the ground (or to anything) if they are not constantly in contact with one another or with the ground? Big problem there. The solution: all atoms are repelling one another. Ahh, you think about it, and you will see the light.

The atoms at the ceiling are pulled by gravity, and they rest on the atoms beneath them. Yes, even though they are not in physical contact, the higher atoms "touch" the ones beneath them via their inter-repulsion forces. If two magnets repel, one can push the other onto any surface; they are in contact through their mutual repulsion force. Same goes for inter-repelling atoms. Therefore, the weight of the highest atoms transfer through the entire sea of atoms, to the last ones on the ground, totalling 14.7 pounds per square inch.

But if atoms attract one another, as the big-bang goons insist, there is no way for the weight of the highest atoms to transfer to the ground. You just think about that, and you will be truly enlightened. The biggest part of your enlightenment is that your science heroes wish to rule over your mind while filling it with lies and errors. You just think about that.

The evolutionists who chose the kinetic theory knew of this problem. They weren't stupid in that way, but they were demonically stupid by lying to themselves and/or the world by denying inter-repelling gas atoms. Their inter-attracting gas atoms could provide air pressure in theory, via atomic collisions with every surface, but bash-bash atoms could not explain the weight of the atmosphere, which is exactly identical to air pressure. Yes, air pressure is exactly its weight, not its bash-bash punch. Therefore, they lied, and they knew it.

If they had been willing to accept inter-repelling air atoms, they would have realized that something gives them lift when heat was applied. They would have realized that inter-repelling atoms cannot be bashing about. Instead, they seek a motionless-grid formation, spreading until trapped by neighboring atoms at equa-distance from one another. If you don't introduce a force into air, the atoms will stay motionless at equal distances from one another.

As the bash-bash theory is their very definition of heat, we need another definition of heat. As heat causes air atoms to move further apart, heat either causes atoms to repel more strongly, and/or gives them more lift. r

There is nothing to give lift to air atoms but the solar-wind electrons that have invaded the atmosphere. True, they stream in toward the earth from one angle, from the sun's direction, but they stream upward / outward in all other directions. Otherwise, if they did not escape back into space, we would fry. What sends them back to space? If the big-bang goons had been honest, they would have discovered right here why the comet has a tail: gravity repels electrons back into space. Rejoice, Christians, for God has revealed some of the realities through one of us, but has allowed his enemies to create a fictitious universe, to their great shame.

On 12 February 1991, at a distance of 14.4 AU (2.15×109 km) from the Sun, Halley displayed an outburst that lasted for several months, releasing a cloud of dust 300,000 km across.

It's not easy to find how far from the sun a comet lights up, because it shows what whackos our cosmologists are. In other words, it's not easy to find because they don't want to advertise their stupidity. 14.4 AU's is 14.4 times as far from the sun as earth, a very frigid zone. But here's what the liars teach to make their invention credible: "As the comet comes closer to the sun, near the region of space occupied by Mars it becomes warm enough for the comet to begin to evaporate. When evaporation begins, the coma and tail form." No, not Mars, but the tail of Haley's comet is formed much further out in very frigid areas.

Here's an example of their cartoon inventions: "When comets are kicked out of the Oort Cloud, they begin a passage into the solar system..." It's the cloud of their dreams; they're absolutely crazy. You could get a better education watching children's cartoons. But they force scientists to accept the Oort cloud as a fact of science. They're mad.

Why is it necessary for comets to have origin outside of the solar system? Because, they know that no one will find a source of water in the solar system from which comets could be formed. So, they invented a source where no one can see anything to prove otherwise.

A comet eventually falls back to the sun, which begs the question of why electrons don't eventually fall back, if it's true, as they think, that electrons are attracted by gravity. I wondered whether their so-called "escape velocity" was mere invention to explain why electrons don't fall back. They expectedly claim that the solar wind travels faster than comets. I've assumed that they timed solar-wind particles correctly by the effects of sunspot activity on earth, but the mucks could have mucked that up too in favor of their needs. I could only find one voice online resisting the comet-ice theory, showing how brain dead scientists are; they refuse to buck against the establishment, in case you thought that they possessed their own brains.

And when the establishment teaches that sunspots are black due to "cold" areas, all the brainless follow along as though they didn't have their own minds to think. Even if I tell them the real cause of sunspots so logically as to be undeniable, they will refuse to teach and correct the buffoons. The system is so rigged. A cold area in the sun is not expected to come to our eyes as black, stupid. The most it could show is less white than the hotter parts, but with the difference in color hardly measurable because a sunspot cannot be much cooler than the parts beside them. I'm not advocating cold sunspots, anyway; that's the theory of the stupids whom have no other explanation, because they refuse to see the solar wind as the light-wave medium.

After I came to realize that the sea of electrons filling space were the light-wave medium, I was able to predict that sunspots are areas of the sun moving downward, toward the solar core, faster than solar-wind electrons eject toward our eyes. It's so simple and logical, so neatly explicable, and I didn't yet know in those days that scientists view sunspots as huge whirlpools i.e. with material sinking toward the solar core. This lucky strike predicts that the solar wind is not as fast as they say. Can we imagine solar material sinking as fast as 400 km/sec (about 900,000 mph)? I can't.

One light wave is formed when one electron is ejected from an atom against one solar-wind electron. The motion-energy then travels (bump after bump) from the first one to the rest, in straight lines. The ejecting electrons are so fiercely fast that they do not affect (or move), by their repulsion forces, electrons to their sides, but bump only the electrons to their front (the direction in which they go). If the solar atoms emitting electrons are sinking / falling core-ward, away from earth, faster than the ejecting electrons are jolting toward earth, no wave of energy will form in order to come to our eyes as light, and this registers as black to our eyes.

Sunspots are areas of extreme, hot activity. They know that sunspot activity causes more radiation, more heat, at the earth. How can they say that sunspots are colder, therefore? My prediction is that sunspots could be, not necessarily whirlpools, but severe explosions, with atoms ejected high into the solar "atmosphere." They then need to fall back to the sun, and when they do, they accelerate until falling faster than the solar wind moves up toward our eyes.

It doesn't seem very likely that solar-wind electrons are moving as fast as "escape velocity," which is the speed needed to be achieved, they say, in which something can never be pulled back to the sun by gravity force. However, my current prediction (may need correction) is that electrons at the sun are moving out slower than those deeper in space. At first, this sounds backward. We would expect the ones closest to the sun, closest to the explosiveness, to be moving the fastest, but, on second thought, it doesn't figure in the acceleration of electrons due to their scattering under their own inter-repulsion. For every ejected electron, there is first the initial ejection speed, and afterward the acceleration due to inter-repulsion.

Electrons out in space are thereby predicted to be faster than the speed of ejections at the sun. Do solar-wind electrons forever accelerate? It's an interesting question. What is their maximum speed? Is there one?

As gravity causes eternal acceleration for atoms being pulled, shouldn't gravity cause eternal acceleration of solar-wind electrons? This doesn't include the acceleration due to their inter-repulsion forces. No escape velocity is needed to appeal to, when one correctly understands that solar-wind particles are forever repelled away.

What will be the difference in the speed of light as it passes through fast solar-wind electrons versus near-stationary electrons in earth's atmosphere? What will be the difference between light through slower solar wind versus faster solar wind, or more dense versus less dense? Surely, the speed of light cannot be the same in all of these different situations.

You can't bounce light off the moon to measure the speed of light through space, because light won't be detected on earth after it's merely reflected off the moon. If they say they can do it, they're faking it.

You can't send a radio signal to the moon and have it bounced back because NASA can't get a large-enough piece of equipment on the moon to make sound audible from there. The men on the moon talking to Houston was faked. In some cases of conversations, they forget to add the lag time of a few seconds. One person on earth hears the answer of a supposed lunar astronaut a second after asking a question; that's how you know they faked it. We can't trust fakes; everything from NASA must be treated as false until proven true. They invent high technology to fool the Russians, we now know that, and in the meantime the frauds bask in the glory of appearing super intelligent.

What is the difference between the speed of light when sending it toward the sun, into a solar wind that increases with density with distance, versus the other way around, from the sun to the earth? If the one electron that starts a single wave is ejected into a solar wind that has electrons more distant, doesn't that set the speed of light at a slower rate right out of the gate? I predict that there is more lag time between bumping electrons when they are more distant.

The Blood Moon

Something occurred to me while writing on the moon's tail above. I wondered whether the red, Biblical moon could be due to a moon heated by internal electron flow, the same that heats comets. There was no way I could conceive such a thing due to a moon orbiting faster toward the sun, but I then wondered about the black sun that comes with the blood-red moon; so says Revelation 6, which is an echo of other scriptures.

How can the sun become black for a day or more at Revelation's 6th Seal? It occurred to me above that, if solar gravity were to be turned up, it would pull solar atoms with more force, suddenly. It's possible for the entire sun to become black when outer material is pulled downward faster than the electrons of that same material are ejected toward earth. In other words, the entire solar surface would act like a giant sunspot.

Hmm, and due to the increased gravity, electrons would start to flow within both the earth and the moon. The effect of rising heat thereby within the earth would be to cause volcanoes / earthquakes. If the moon at that time is orbiting sunward, its interior could get hot enough to have the surface glow deep red. It all works.

Increased gravity in the sun would be caused by an unusual emission of electrons. The more the electron density, the stronger the gravity force. Isaiah says that, at that time, the earth would sway back and forth like a hut in the wind. If solar gravity were to fluctuate, wouldn't that cause a sway of earth in its orbit, first coming closer to the sun, then further away again when the sun resumes its normal light? There could be erratic fluctuations in the solar gravity, and fluctuations in the sun's brightness until it goes altogether dark. What a fright that would be.

Revelation implies that, prior to the darkening of the sun, sunlight will be turned up by one third its power, as will moonlight and starlight. The latter is dependent on the solar wind. Without solar wind, no starlight gets to our eyes. In order to increase sunlight by one third, there needs to be harder emissions of solar electrons, thus bringing the situation closer to the black-sun scenario. That is, after the sun goes brighter by one third, it becomes brighter still in a following plague until gravity is strong enough to make the entire sun look like a black sunspot.

If the sun's light is one third more powerful, the density of the solar wind increases, and this could conceivably make starlight brighter too. However, Old Testament prophecy says that starlight will be darkened when the sun is darkened, and this I cannot explain by this increased-gravity theory. For even when the sun doesn't emit light by this theory, there is yet a solar wind being produced through which stars may convey their light.

In order to eradicate the solar wind, the heat production of the sun (emitted electrons) needs to be turned off. If that were to happen to a sufficient degree, the stars would vanish as the sky itself would vanish. The sky would vanish starting at one end of the sky, nearest the sun, and proceeding to the other side (like a scroll rolling up?).

Explosions have the power to move things, no secret. The rocket engine is a continuous explosion that shoves the rocket forward, not so much (hardly at all) because the explosive force hits the air, but because it hits the metal of the rocket. The formation of gravity in a planet is from a continuous explosive force that could be responsible for the continuous spin of a planet. If the sun's gravity force were to be turned up for many months before Armageddon, thus releasing electrons / heat in the earth, couldn't that speed the spin to significantly less than 24 hours, because increased electrons is an increase of earth's gravity?

Will people get heavier in those days? Will ships sail deeper? Will missiles go less far than their aiming equipment are programmed for? Will airplanes need to make more fuel stops? Will they be able to fly at all without altering their gadgets? Will the added heat of that time slow the military of the nations as God's deliberate plan to do so? Note that the 5th Bowl, which marks the end of the anti-Christ's 1260 days, has his throne plunged into darkness, for the 5th Bowl is immediately followed by the 6th Seal, the plague with the darkening of sun and the rest of the heavens. The plagues go in this order: 1 Seal, 1 Trump, 1 Bowl, 2 S, 2 T, 2 B...5 S, 5 T, 5 B, 6 S...

If the spin of the earth increases, so will winds. It will alleviate some of the added heat due to the brighter sun. My biggest problem has been to explain how the stars can fall to the ground, as says the 6th Seal (Revelation 6:13), and my best shot is to suggest a fast-spinning earth. But in order to give appearances of stars falling to the horizon, the earth would need to spin many times faster than it does now, yet that seems to me to amount to an atmospheric catastrophe, unless the acceleration of the spin is very slow, over months, so that the air can catch up slowly to the increased spin. However, in that case, the stars will seem to be falling (on one horizon only) even before the 6th Seal. I'm out of luck, it seems, for explaining falling stars.

The predicted increase in wind speeds due to the altered spin can well explain the huge hailstones of the 6th Seal (Revelation 6:21), for hail is formed by winds in the cloud zones. Increased winds prevent ships from having easy voyages at sea. What happens to trade? Increased winds may cause aircraft to have impossibly flights. Air forces may be largely grounded at the end of the 1260 days, therefore, a good thing.

In Zechariah 14:7, speaking of this very time, it says that there will be sunlight in the evening...to be expected only if the earth's spin changes. "On that day there will be no light, no cold or frost. It will be a day known only to the LORD, without day or night; but when evening comes, there will be light." It's hard to see how there can be no night at all. Perhaps it means that the night will not be the usual 8-10 hours long, but more like an hour or less. I suppose that such a situation alleviates extreme heat that would be caused if the sun's extra heat and light were to remain over a normal-day period.

Also, with a faster spin, the upper atmosphere can whip the solar wind away much better, preventing much of the increased heat from entering the air. Solar-wind electrons push air atoms, but air atoms also push electrons. For example, wherever the wind goes, there goes the heat of a fire. Air pushes heat. They always move together as a unit. Increased winds probably allows atmospheric electrons to escape into space more efficiently, and does cause heat to exit the ground more efficiently, alleviating the hotter temperatures around our bodies. Once escaped from the ground, heat dissipates above our heads quickly in winds.

Revelation 6:14 says that, after the darkening of the sun, "every island and mountain were moved out of their places" . It sounds as though they get shifted. In the 7th Bowl, "Every island fled, and the mountains could not be found." Of course such an event as the complete lowering of mountains requires some internal catastrophe. Evolutionists may mock at this prophecy, but I see it as very possible if only the interior of the earth is heated, allowing the magma to rise through the crust, from its bottom side, until it reaches the roots of mountains, at which time the mountains can shift as they begin to lose their footing to the magma. Finally, with more heating, the mountains fall completely into the magma. Easy enough.

So, it appears that global warming is indeed on its way, and everyone will know that it's from the increased heat of the sun, not from greenhouse gases. The devils are trying to figure out when their last days have arrived. Surely, they will hope to cause the human leaders to destroy mankind when they see that there is nothing they can do to avoid The Plan. If not for the appearance of Jesus, they would destroy mankind, says Matthew 24. Prophecy tells that he steps down on the mount of Olives as it splits apart. This is going to be a wild time. The extreme fright of the human race.

An easy way to turn the sun black without removing heat from the earth is to cause a gigantic explosion of solar material, so that the entire solar "surface" becomes a flare (or a countless combination of flares). What goes up must come down, and when the material of the flaring falls back to the sun, it can go black to our eyes.

The following video is not bad. You might want to skip the basics in the first few minutes, and get to the specifics of the planets that contradict the evolution of the solar system. The last planets to be discussed are the comets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr8Az3QQZdI

For another piece of evidence on the faked moon pictures, see the video below starting at the 15:00 point, showing different pasted earths in two photographs no more than days apart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqn5AG11D0

Do not click on a flat-earth video, or youtube could feed them to you for weeks.

Political Trolls are Out of Control

I've exhausted my comet topic; can't think of what more to add. Every once in a while, I get into scientific discussions to show that this world's most-valued experts are the biggest frauds. This is in line with the fraudulent government people hoping to hem the general public into their unofficial but very real social-engineering programs, for controlling our thinking in going forward to some mysterious thing they have planned. All sorts of tricks are involved. I think it's because demons hem them in and control their thinking, where the end-goal will be to box Christians up for persecution if they can't succeed in eradicating faith in Jesus. They tried through evolution, but details and intricacies from scientific studies, probably by the plan of God since the Creation, shouts a Creator from the housetops. It's got to be very frustrating for the anti-Christs. Science is sorely backfiring on evolutionists, working to destroy peoples' faith in them instead, how wonderful. But they won't lie down in defeat.

God has counter-measures against them, be well aware. It will all backfire on our enemies, and no one will feel sorry for them. "Backfire" is God's favorite word. It's also called reaping what you sow. Kill, and you shall be killed. God has been waiting, waiting, waiting for the special day when He starts to thwart his enemies, to award them pain pain pain. You can't get more Biblical than that. God wants to hurt them. He waits for it. He'll come to it like one coming to the table to get satisfied.

After the Liberals stop licking their wounds on account of losing the Kavanaugh battle, they will be back. Hillary has been ordered to stay low, by the Democrats, in these mid-terms. Think of how painful this is for both she and Bill. They are old now, and no one wants them to rise ever again. It's over, forever, for both, but their swan song. It's going to be a pitiful tune. Liberals are being attacked in exactly the way they started attacking their political enemies, but with a major difference: the things they accused people of were false accusations that are true accusations against themselves. Everything they were, they accused others of, in order to rule over them. You can't get more evil, more pathetic, more sickening, which is why I hate them, and why God hates them. "Love your enemies" does not mean you can't be appalled by wicked attitudes; it means we should generally treat them as well as we treat anyone, not to persecute them. It doesn't mean we can't expose their errors, for even Jesus did plenty of it against his political enemies. They accused him exactly of what they were guilty of: empowerment by satan.

I've just looked up post-tribulation videos at youtube once again. Every once in a while, I'll check for latest trends in prophetic topics, but I'm always disappointed, for nothing new is being added that I can respect or join with. But then I haven't got anything new to add myself. I feel like yawning. I did just learn that Kent Hovind became a post-tribulationist while in jail, after decades of believing / preaching pre-trib. The Internet has turned the tide on pre-tribbers; they are no longer the gods of prophecy. Instead, they have become the tail. That dream has come true for me, yet post-tribulationists should prepare for a pre-trib comeback and/or backlash.

I have no idea what motivates the activist pre-tribbers since there is nothing inherently dangerous proposed by post-tribbers. It's pre-tribulationism that is highly dangerous because it risks leaving believers unprepared to face persecution by the anti-Christs. The Biblical "great tribulation" is not the wrath of God; if pre-tribbers can't even get that much straight, they have no business teaching prophecy, especially as they close their eyes to about four basic texts that clearly reveal a post-tribulation "rapture." One can also add that the generality of prophecy never speaks to two comings of Jesus in the final period. God cannot blame us if we wrongly teach a post-tribulation rapture because there is never revealed a pre-tribulation rapture in any of the prophecies.

I was so upset by them that I endeavored to write a book against their beliefs. In that book, I didn't want to get into anti-government propaganda due to conspiracy theories such as the financial collapse, or other fearful things that came to be epitomized by Alex Jones. It's not that I didn't believe that shadow-government conspirators existed, but that I knew God always has a handle on their plots, especially in relation of their persecution of Christians. They can try, but God is their governor. And it's because they try to seize the world that I call them stupids. It's laughable, like trying to grab air.

They can't speak to any success other than getting the masses to become demonic, which, of course, is no success at all, unless you think that destruction is a good thing. Yes, they control the world in that they have introduced and enforced terrible things, but if they provide my child some dope and he takes it and loves it, is that the sort of control we want from them? If you give an adulterer the drive to rape or visit a prostitute, and he takes it, is that a success strategy? Is that really "control"? Well, okay, let's say that they do in fact control the world now, but it's out of control thereby. In that sense, the wicked cannot control the world, for peoples under the control of the wicked will never cease to be divided, never cease to eat one another up. The Romans tried installing peace by brute, murderous force, exactly the doctrine of the demonic, American military...that Trump swears by. Prophecy does say that the end-times will be ruled by a final leg of the Roman empire.

You can't brag about controlling the world when everyone is out of control. They think they can do a fabulous thing, all devoid of God, yet they are faced with a daily drum beat of sour news, a backfiring that stalls the machine, chokes it to brokenness, and finally to death. The final product is all on their heads; someone has to pay for the terrible things now taking place, and, as we can plainly see, it's not the fault of Christians. When they say that all wars are caused by religions, they intently mean to point the guilty finger at us in particular. Plus, Muslims started to war against Americans because Americans were infiltrating their nations.

We can argue as to whether that infiltration was something more benign, such as pure, innocent trade relations, versus some insidious plot to make Muslims Westernized unto a global Order, but the fact is, the Muslims who are at war with the Americans refuse to be Westernized, and they seethe when they see fellow Muslims accepting Westernization. I'm not justifying the Muslims for using military means as a reaction, but I am stating a fact as I see it. Into that perspective of mine, I've got to mix my belief that God plans to punish Muslim nations / religions to their death, yet this alone does not argue for the holiness of the Western coalition. When the prophet Joel speaks of a northern, holy army coming from afar to hamper / destroy Israel's enemies, he could be speaking about the northern path of the "kings of the east," not the Western coalition. We have yet to see whether the West becomes part of the latter-day enemies of Israel.

Just as you see the Democrats blaming the Republicans for the ill that Democrats do, so this madness will be turned on Christians, where we are accused of the very things we speak against them. This is how they will treat us. If God wants them dead, they will want us dead. That's how it will become. Things are turning violent for those spinning out of control in failures, and they are predicted to act the part of violence in order to incite it in the hearts of their most-passionate anti-Christ members. The anti-Christs can now be seen waiting on the sidelines, for their dark hour. Some of them are popping onto the open field from time to time, but for the most part, they are reserving their most-hideous selves for a future time of greater lawlessness. That's how I see it. You can bet three nails and a dirty cross that evolutionists will be at their front lines.

Christians vote Republican because they don't want to see anti-Christs in charge over society. I can agree with this, yet there are demonic forces in the Republican party predicted to lead the party as the fortunes of Christianity go down the pipes. These will secretly mock Christian voters, to help keep the Christians out of power mainly, yet allowed to act merely as figureheads without making the key decisions. Recall how John McCain chose a Christian vice-president, as has Trump. I get it. It's called putting on a mask to get votes, pretending to be what you are not to get power. The party does not wish to advance a true Christian to be the president. Where is this going? Are the foolish virgins, spoken of by Jesus, by-and-large the political animals within the Republican party? I don't know. Could be.

Are they by-and-large the pre-tribulationists, who have shown themselves to freely twist scriptures not to their liking? I don't know. Could be. They are the ones teaching that we are not "appointed" to persecution. I don't know about you, but I'm so angry with our enemies that I want to fight them to the death. It's not my perfect will, but if they won't stop polluting "my" world, they need to be eradicated, and this is exactly how they feel against us. Although we cannot kill them when starting a fight, we can kill them when starting a fight. That is, if we pick a fight with them, God will swing our deadly punches for us, if it's correct for us to pick a fight with them. Whether we do or not, we can count on their picking a fight with us, at which time we get to kill them with the punch-punch of God, so great, so glorious, so satisfying. That's the end-time story, but pre-tribbers want nothing to do with it. They would rather be in a comfortable loft of heaven while the anti-Christs persecute our brothers and sisters in the earthly ditches. That's what they are saying, when they insist that God loves us too much to send us through the final persecution.

On the one hand, Christian Republicans are zealous for a clean, moral, righteous world, and seem, thereby, to be super children of God. On the other hand, I fear that they are engrossing themselves in worldly issues, that God cares nothing/little about, in order to secure Republican power. That's the slippery slope, and it probably leads down to the trench of persecution. They, which includes myself, can be responsible for our enemies picking the end-time fight with us. And we really do want this fight, if God swings on our behalf. Otherwise, we will be trounced for no victory in the meantime.

So, my position is to fight against the enemy, with words, hoping that God will trounce them as they fight back, and, in the meantime, to make a distinction between why we want Republicans in power versus why Godless / hypocritical Republicans want to be in power. We should not sit at the same table with the latter.

I can see how things are shaping up just from the change in attitude displayed by Trump's wife, for example. As the first lady, she dumped her smutty-side look in modeling, and donned a moral appearance instead. Mr. Casino Man has done a similar thing, because they both realize the value in catering to the Christian voter. And they also know that, the more evil the Democrats can be portrayed or revealed, the more that Christians will turn out to vote...but, afterward, there's no rewards for the Christians but some figurehead positions, and just more lip service endlessly. There's no effort by the Godless Republicans to turn the immoralities of the nation around; the emphasis is on money matters instead. That's the dismal truth, and it can mutate Christians into foolish virgins, if they fornicate politically with Godless Republicans...like Trump.

This week, we hear about Andrew Brunson, the jailed pastor, released, in Turkey. Praise God for that man, but what his family has gone through was a nightmare no matter if they treated him "well." Jailing someone on false charges is not exactly good treatment. I don't know what Trump did to get the pastor released, but if it was others who worked on it, he had best not take the credit for that too. It's likely that he played a small part when asked, but ultimately, the Turks needed to figure in Trump's reaction if they refused to free the man. I have no idea whether Trump would have reacted at all against Turkey for this one man alone; maybe not. He plans on having Brunson in the White House with him today as I write, and so I predict that this will be his opportunity of taking credit, and he can use it to get Christian voters out.

There is even a chance that one or more of Trump's people arranged to have the Turks keep the pastor in jail until just before these American elections. It was Jimmy Carter, if I recall correctly, who did a similar thing for a political advantage. Here's the nice, White-House event with Brunson, probably still a little stunned to be living his freedom again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NLFx0u1Kjs

Trump ruins the event by excusing his weapons sales to Saudi Arabia because it's not only better than allowing Russia or China to make the profits instead (sounds like the CIA's argument), but it gives jobs to Americans. But wait; if it's wrong to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia, how can he try to make it look like a good thing with those two reasons? Weapons in the Middle East spells Armageddon, doesn't it? Is it a good thing to buy Saudi friendship with killing machines? What would Jesus say? Let the dead sell weapons to the dead, but you, follow Me. I wonder, does Jesus get any credit for Brunson's release?

Trump knows that Christians want him to become a Christian so that he can be a political force for our causes, but that's not the appropriate reason for his becoming a Christian, nor should he for that reason. To best make Trump become a Christian, one needs to care about his eternal destiny, which is what Jesus cares about. Salvation from death is how Jesus makes loyalists. If Trump were to decide that he should use the presidency for Christ, Jesus would not frown upon it, but Trump would first need to accept that Jesus is his superior. If he wants to become truly great, that's the way to start. I have noticed in the last few days that he's shown a little humility, and even modesty. What gives? This is new. If he keeps that up, it would be a key improvement.

God may allow Democrats to win the Senate / House so that Trump will need to take the blame for the failure against the deep state, at which time he may feel compelled to declassify EVERYTHING, in an effort to make amends for failing his party on this matter. In the meantime, he would get what he deserves, a clipping of his broad powers, as reward for failing justice in his first two years. God is justice; the world must exercise justice, not merely give it lip service. Turning a blind eye to high-level corruption is obscene. Trump has been obscene, which was his nature even before he became the president.

Jesus is the Champion of Justice. It is just to forgive Trump if he sees his error and repents. It is just to punish him if he sees his error and continues in it. The leaders are not serious about righteousness until they club unrighteousness to death. The nation moans under the weight of unrighteousness, and Trump does NOTHING about it. His dream is to make everyone richer in money, and to take the credit for it. Clearly, he's mentally handicapped by the spirit(s) who possesses him.

I can't stress enough the great value of a righteous God. Imagine if God were wishy-washy on whether to teach his human race the right from the wrong. Imagine if right was not to be esteemed as much as wrong. Imagine if adultery were deemed the right and normal thing to do because it spices up a marriage on both sides. Every weekend, there would be a global rush to sharing marital partners at orgies. Some in our world welcome this, and would move our children toward it. This is where they are taking the world. They would deny that fidelity has any value because the big-o is most of what matters in a marriage. Why doesn't God agree with this? Why did he include fidelity in one of the Ten Commandments? Just ask the pain of any normal spouse who has discovered a cheating spouse. Why does it hurt? Why can it bring one to rage? It sure feels wrong, doesn't it? It's so very, very bad -- something Trump boasted that he himself practiced -- yet Western society had no law against adulterers. It thereby shows that it puts little value on marriages and fidelity, which moves the people toward that weekend orgy.

God values family, loyalty to one another, to take nothing that belongs to others, to feel badly for the sufferings of those who cannot do well financially. Aren't we very lucky to have a God like that? It promises a wholesome ending, healthy and vibrant, like outspreading flowers on a serene field of life. Yet, Obama mocks. He plugs holes into Jesus like a mobster wielding a machine gun. What has gone wrong with liberals? When did they begin to become demented? It started when the youth of my generation decided to start the sexual revolution, when they decided that God's right wasn't necessarily so. God stands tall in righteousness. His face exudes it. He's troubled when people abandon and violate it. He birthed us to learn the right from the wrong; it was the problem of Eden. The problem was our downfall. We chose the wrong.

Obama mocks God for casting mankind down to a life of torment just because Eve took the fruit. It's such a small wrong that she did, he would argue, yet God hammered the entire human race because of it. What a lousy God, says Obama. Others blame God for putting that one tree in Eden in the first place, as though God secretly wanted Eve to provide the downfall of man. But this type of thinking is all WRONG, surprise surprise.

The fact that the test of Eden was so easy to resist speaks loudly. There were plenty of trees to eat from. There was only one not to eat from. Mankind did not chose to eat the fruit due to hunger. It was easy to resist that fruit. This test exposes that the sin of man was not in taking the fruit, but in violating his Creator. Everyone else, including me, has done the same as Adam and Eve, over and over. God did not cast mankind down due to the one sin of Eve, or the second sin of Adam in sticking up for her, but rather this test is an example of the sin problem as a whole.

God knew that man would fail righteousness, and that He had to have a plan to overcome it. We have seen only Act One of that Plan, our forgiveness in Jesus. We have yet to see Act Two, our ability to become like Jesus, at the Resurrection of Revelation 20, after the persecution of the Church. I predict that, with better minds at the Resurrection, and minus our sex organs, we will become lawful naturally, able to be like God in every way so that Law can be done away with. There will no longer be, in the Spiritual realm, anyway, a rule like the rule of Eden. After the Resurrection of Revelation 20, the saints will cut down the tree of right and wrong. Only the trees of right will remain standing. On earth, and only for a limited time, the Jewish remnant will begin to grow right trees until they too join the kingdom of spiritual bodies. Aren't you glad we have a God like this?

We have got to trust through thick and thin that God has a good ending to the brutality and madness of this current history. Our doubts will be stoked by the tricky-dicky Obama's of this day, but God will take the fans from their hands, and use them against them to inflame their very souls in the fires of Hell. The Backlash in the Sky is coming. The scars on His body justify His whiplashing of Obama, the arrogant one. Even in his downfall, the little man remains arrogant. He doesn't see that he is in a tailspin, about to be burned in a crashing. He thinks he's more righteous than Jesus, and superior to the Law of Moses. He would mock God for ordering the stoning of thieves, yet Obama ordered the ripping of bullets (a form of stoning to death) into bodies for gain in the Muslim world. He worked in league with violent Americans who wished to steal parcels of wealth of entire countries. And he may also have assassinated some just because they opposed his plans. We don't know, yet, because the deep state is protecting all that he did secretly as president.

If the Obama circle rises to take Trump's place, we might keep eyes out for their re-attack against Israel's rightist party, and perhaps their toppling of Sisi's Egypt in order to get at Israel militarily. What was Obama's will for installing the Egyptian government upon the forehead of the Muslim Brotherhood?\ Could Trump declassify some documents to expose this? Zzzzz.

When Trump flew to the swearing-in of Kavanaugh this Monday, he took Rosenstein with him on board the presidential plane. They look like buddies. When asked (Monday) whether he intended to fire Rosenstein, the president said, no. On Tuesday, Fox had this:

Two senior FBI officials told the bureau’s top lawyer they believed Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was “serious” when he discussed secretly recording President Trump and invoking the 25th Amendment to remove him from office last year, according to sources close to a congressional investigation...

Former FBI General Counsel James A. Baker told congressional investigators during a closed-door deposition last week that...he took McCabe and Page's account “seriously,” the sources said. Further, Baker told congressional investigators he suspected “Rosenstein was coordinating with two people in the administration to invoke the 25th Amendment,” a source said.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fbi-lawyers-testimony-at-odds-with-rosenstein-denial-on-wire-report

That's huge. Did Baker reveal the names of the two White-House traitors / moles? It's doubtful he would make the killer suggestion is he wasn't also willing to reveal their names. This turn of events is forcing Trump to deal with his arch enemy, yet he takes him on his plane just as it's taking place? I see Rosenstein running into Trump's shade for protection, and Trump accepting his presence there.

It's not making sense to me. If Rosenstein gets away with this, I will view this news story as a continuing part of a long, roller-coaster theater in which Trump is a main player. The other side can just say that Baker is wrong in his analysis of "serious." This creates juicy news, as with past disclosures, yet nothing is ever done by Trump that sets the crucial, fatal trap. He continues to let them act. After saying he would declassify, he refused to declassify based on an appeal by Rosenstein to him personally. It seems that Trump has given Rosenstein a red carpet to his heart, amounting to the highest height of our confusion thus far. It seems that the realities about Trump are about to break into the open. Yet he is pushing his fate in this regard until after the elections. Okay, his voters will be there to see what he does then.

Rosenstein's woes at this time can keep him from doing anything drastic against Trump for this election. That is, there may be no surprise from Mueller. Republicans are all over Rosenstein at this time and for the next few weeks at least. It is very hard to understand why the New York Times released that story on him just before the elections; it's unlike the politics-as-usual from the Times. Again, this may be theater, but until there's proof, I've got to treat it as reality (not scripted). It becomes the job of the deep state to feed the media juicy stories in return for media's favors. I can imagine the jobs of some at the CIA and FBI to create juicy news, with twists and turns that ultimately go nowhere dangerous for the deep-state leaders.

By Wednesday on Hannity, I learned that Rosenstein isn't showing up to a congressional meeting scheduled for Thursday. And Nunes appeared to show his disappointment in Trump for giving Rosenstein more time before declassification. Rosenstein wanted the inspector general to handle the threat, and Trump, the fool, gave it to him. WHY WHY WHY? Trump hasn't even explained himself. The people want to know what he's planning to do with this. Has anyone asked him why he's not firing Rosenstein? What's the REASON. It's not good enough that he's not firing him. He needs to tell the reason, and the implied reason is that he's unsure of whether Rosenstein was serious. If, therefore, news comes out with a new fact proving that he was not serious, I'd take that as evidence that this story is mere theater between the FBI and the media.

Surely, if Rosenstein won't appear before congress, it's because he's guilty of seeking to topple Trump. And that's why Trump is, once again, acting like a deep-state agent even while he rails against it. In the least, he doesn't want to disappoint the very people that want to topple him. Even though this issue is now entering some of the highest crimes possible, Trump has yet to complain publicly against Wray for not making the appropriate arrests. It is terribly insufficient to merely see Rosenstein and the others lose their jobs. Even though Trump was responsible for what the Democrats did to Kavanaugh, and even while that was taking place while Rosenstein was being discovered for what he is, yet Trump refuses to act with severe punishments in order to curb this criminal behavior. Trump appears to be a troll in this picture, a worm of the Intelligence community.

Yes, Trump is responsible for the Kavanaugh ordeal because he didn't frighten the Democrats at all when he had opportunity to do so. Not until the evidential facts are made public by declassification can the punishments begin, for at that time, Sessions and Wray have no way to continue the cover-up. There is no way they can justify the soft hand they've been using once everyone sees the facts point-blank. And these facts are exactly what Trump has been keeping from the public. If he lambastes the deep state, it's only on what others have already revealed against it. He contributes nothing.

When Trump was flying with Rosenstein days ago, he said on public television that he has a very good relationship with him, other than the Russian-collusion thingie. He spooked his voters, speaking as though this were a minor thingie, otherwise he just loves Rosenstein. But the little thingie is Rosenstein's attempt to topple him, and the evidence toward that treason has just been amplified. Is this the proper way for a president to speak in that face of a treasonous conspiracy involving at least 10 upper-level mobsters? What sort of imposter is this president? He really doesn't want a confrontation, even though it's his responsibility to start one. Therefore, if he really were a good president, he would order his justice department to start what needs to start. Zzzzz.

Trump is an imposter. He is starting to think that he can retain the House and Senate without punishing anyone, without advancing justice, and without declassifying the truth. Part of me hopes that he'll lose the Senate, but then nothing might get done. He deserves to lose power. The best thing he's ever done is boast about himself. The booming economy is not booming for the poor or the average worker. Lower unemployment means the rich are getting richer. With more money floating around due to reduced taxes, there's nothing in place to curb increased prices, and governments likes high prices. All workers will now pay more for everything they buy. It happens in cycles: prices go up, up, up, until there's a recession. It will happen again. With more money floating around, up go interest rates so that all benefits in tax savings are stolen in one way or another by those who shift the standards. Nothing prohibits them from taking as much as possible. For many, a "booming economy" means they'll have spending money for a change, or that they can actually leave the house for a week on their vacation. But that is the full extent of it, unless they are in business. They can then buy steak more often.

We are now at the point where Hillary and Holder are coming out subtly urging violence. The deep state could survive, somehow, if a civil-war scenario begins. I suspect Obama behind some of the violence, with the hope that Republicans will return to their do-nothing, scared-stiff attitude. Just when Republican voters needed to expose the government mafia most, Trump denied them and fell in love with the head mobster. He doesn't deserve be the nation's leader. He's a do-nothing playing the part of a do-something. So long as he allows the wicked to operate, he's a do-nothing. Nothing else matters in a nation more than crushing wickedness, deception, and the greed that grows.

A great nation is one with a spiritually-healthy environment. Trump has been the beautiful-on-the-outside greed-on-the-inside type; what makes us think he's had a change since becoming president? I'm judging his motives by how little he's addressed the wickedness under Obama. He addresses them with his words, but that's merely the beautiful-on-the-outside. When the opportunities appear for driving the hammer down on the heads of state who continue to act wickedly, he becomes shifty and deceptive. It's obvious. He complains about how terrible Sessions is, but leaves him in his job. Wray and Rosenstein are just as bad or worse, but he doesn't complain about, or replace, them.

The deep state wants to push the idea that terrorism is inside the USA. This is ludicrous, but Trump supports it. Headline at Breitbart this week: "Director Wray: FBI Investigating 5,000 Terror Cases Worldwide, Including 1,000 in U.S." Wray's now trying to appear useful, because he's being useless. What about the criminals in government, who are far more damaging than phantom terrorists? The CIA pushes terrorism as a hoax, it's obvious. Every once in a while, it or its sister(s) stages a faked terror event. It's obvious. It's the Intelligence people along with the FBI who are enemies of the people, who seek to control them, to march them into their future schematics. Trust me: Trump is an imposter, working with the enemies of the people, and the enemies of God. Trump loves the deceptive, do-nothing (wasteful), anti-Christ NASA. There's a reason for it having to do with his spiritual condition, and his choices on which truth to believe. He has chosen the truth beloved of political expedience. This is the truth that denies deep-state greed and corruption in 9-11. What makes us think that he's against the deep-state, therefore?

Fox is right-now in the throws of pacifying Republicans. Don't be angry like those nasty Democrats, Fox's hosts are all saying. But I say that now is the time to be angry, at Trump and all those involved in the deep-state cover-up. Now is the time to unleash upon them. Now is the time to demand from Trump the start of justice. He takes his voters for his personal puppets.

As of near midnight on October 10, Trump supposedly had 23 tweets for the day. You don't really believe that these tweets are from one person, do you? You don't really imagine that he sits around all day trying to frame tweets, do you? Doesn't he have important things to do instead? Does he have a lot of time on his hands? He looks like quite the big fake, and the only purpose in tweeting is to manufacture a good image.

The CIA is a mind-controller. It's job is not to control the minds of foreigners, but of its own citizens. The media is part of the mind-control beast, to shape the nation's fears and priorities. It is unconcerned with the concerns of Jesus. You need to get this and never forget it: the West has abandoned Jesus and taken on a Jesus-like form in the meantime, acting respectable-on-the-outside while operating with greed-on-the-inside. Jesus would urge corporations to play fair ball, to lower their prices to the point of no longer making profits. Once companies have achieved millions in profit annually, that is enough. If they make more, they take from what others could have in their paychecks. It's as simple as that, but politicians on both sides have no plan to curb the ever-increasing greed of corporations. In fact, they call it a "booming economy." Don't you as a Christian get it?

Trickle-down economics is the imposition of a straw man on the workers, not their prize. Trickle-down asks the workers to be content with some extra crumbs from the loaf that God would give wholly to them. Once companies have achieved great wealth, their hearts should turn to their own workers, their own "family." Instead, they exploit the workers for more profits. Trump is wholly in favor of this capitalist system. There is no ceiling high enough for the greedy of this generation. Once a company owns a city block, it put up a skyscraper temple to itself, then strives to own the neighborhood, and later the city...and later it joins the bundle of sticks who wish to rule the world. Prophecy teaches that these sticks are fuel for the fires that burn Babylon the Great. Their trade will come to a fiery end. Can we see why greed would create a world war? Why doesn't Trump see it? Why is he trying to make American richer than it already is?

Isn't Trump the company that once ruled merely a city block, yet he now aspires to rule the world with other fat sticks bundled together in a Globalist union? Which sticks will he chose to be part of his global reach, or global order? He's already chosen the American military, those who quell their respect of Russia and China, who look upon them with disdain and thus stoke the fires of Armageddon. Fox has an article on the possible, souring relationship between Trump and Mattis: "'I heard you're actually the Devil incarnate and I wanted to meet you,' Mattis told Bolton in an exchange captured by microphones when they met at the Pentagon earlier this year." The leader of the American military should not utter such words, as a joke, as we await the true devil incarnate.

Recall the charge of Baker, that there are two Trump administrators in cahoots with Rosenstein in the plot to topple Trump, for Mattis became suspect (in my eyes) in a plot against Trump, recently, when he and Kelly were at John McCain's funeral. On that day, Mattis was eyeing Lindsey Graham as a Hillary-supporting Democrat, Huma Abedin, came to give him a hug very unexpectedly (we expect the two to be political enemies). There appeared to be the possibility that she was relaying a secret message to him that then went to Kelly a minute later (all caught on video), who was also eying the hug-encounter. I can fathom an assassination attempt from Hillary's crime ring, with Kelly and Mattis involved, but with so little evidence to go on, I can't make such a statement. Trump may be pushing Mattis out at this time because he's discovered something about him, but the article with the quote above frames it as Mattis wanting to quit. Is this a common case of heads butting heads, or something worse on Mattis' side?

With one small statement, Trump offended Mattis in this story. He publicly revealed that he's unhappy with Mattis' Democrat-like stance, and, very possibly, Mattis partook in Obama's deal with Iran. While Mattis likes some of it, Trump obliterated it. In other words, Trump obliterated the parts that Mattis may have been personally responsible for.

From the suspect Washington Post: "Not long after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis took over at the Pentagon, he set out to transform the U.S. military into a better-equipped, deadlier force that would waste less money, deepen alliances around the world, and evolve to counter Russia and China." It sounds like a recipe for Armageddon. He sounds like the nut that he is. He seems to be bent on world conquest, and Trump seems happily with him on this point. The main difference between the two is that Mattis wants a fat bundle of sticks as his partnership unto global conquest. Trump is more apt to send the sticks running away, perhaps a sign that he wants to be the undisputed, way-to-the-front leader of the global order. Or, he may just be trying to tweak the behavior of the global order. Mattis wants to keep the relationships that the deep state has cultivated over decades, and here Trump, this week, looks ready to stone even Saudi Arabia. One shaping-up thing seems a little certain, that Trump acts more on principle than concern for long-term oneness in globalism. That's probably a good thing, but this alone doesn't make him good enough. The lack of news from Syria is another good thing to his credit, though, at any time, Trump may decide to flare in Syria. This prospect seems to be on a back burner.

Mattis articulated his concept early this year in a new national defense strategy that defined great-power competition with Russia and China as the military’s top priority — and minimized the focus on counterterrorism and threats from rogue nations

...All the while, he has largely insulated the Pentagon from the type of politicization that Trump has inflicted on the CIA and the FBI. (Washington Post).

As one can gather yet again, the Washington Post is a CIA mouthpiece. If you want to know what the CIA-propaganda position is, read the WP when it speaks on it. Trump is not fully in line with the CIA will, and this is probably Mattis' job. The CIA is the shadow government. It's likely stacked with Bush-circle hawks. Trump feels he needs to compromise with them to some degree, or face severe repercussions, yet this beast is exactly the thing he needs to reveal to the people so that he and they together can obliterate it. Yet, Trump has been a dismal failure in this regard, and is in line to leave this thing operating after he leaves Office.

There is nothing much set up to curb deception in advertising. Deception is harmful to all. Deception teaches deception. It spreads like greed because the two are close relatives. Greed never takes the straight path, but always looks for a short-cut based on deception. The art of deception is to appear beautiful on the outside, just like every commercial you see, yet the greedy are packed-jammed behind the curtains of the commercials. They devote your money to advertising in order to ever-increase profits. Yes, it is your money, for they charge extra for the "business expense" of advertising. So, Coca-Cola charges extra for each coke so that it can throw commercials into your face, and you think commercials are free for you. The government doesn't care if every household is inundated with commercials each day and night. We all pay for commercials as much as 15 percent of everything we buy. "The U.S. Small Business Administration recommends spending 7 to 8 percent of your gross revenue for marketing and advertising if you're doing less than $5 million a year in sales and your net profit margin — after all expenses — is in the 10 percent to 12 percent range." There's your 11 percent commercial tax, in case you failed to add that to your cost-of-living expenses.

I'm absolutely sure that you -- and especially the poor and disabled -- could do something better with that money than pay for the too-loud, or too-in-your-face, nauseating commercials you'd rather not see or hear. While the government doesn't tax your food, food commercials do. Don't the leaders know enough not to allow this much advertising? But the government would lose a lot of revenue with fewer commercials, and so the government would like to see more of it. This is your glorious nation, America, so greedy that it's borrowed 20 trillion dollars more than it has collected since about the time of president Clinton or Bush. Glory glory glory, Trump says he's about to make America great again just as it's sliding off the fiscal cliff. Peace and safety, say the false prophets.

"The average cost per click of an online Facebook ad is $1.72." Advertising is not free. We can live with a lot less of it, but greed wants more of it. Advertising profits fuel the Democrat machine because 80 percent or more of the media is the Democrat machine. Doesn't Facebook make enough already? Greed needs to be viewed as God views it, a spiritual illness and destructive force. Western governments are promoting spiritual illnesses. They favor the "free market" operating in greed. It is not unfair to prevent greed by force. It must be prevented by force because those who operate in it force it upon us. No one consents to greed because it robs them. Understood properly, greed is a robber. Mobsters are made of greed. It is the flesh of criminals. It exudes from their faces.

One false solution is to rob the highest money makers with the highest taxes, yet this solution doesn't work because governments keeps the money for their own purposes and growth rather than giving it back to workers. The fairest way by far is to set limits on pricing, but governments don't grow richer by this method, so don't hold your breath. Besides, collecting higher taxes is often a failure because corporations can spend their profits to grow larger, thus evading taxes. Legally, they are not required to pay income taxes on "business expenses," and growing bigger is lumped into business expenses. The government doesn't mind this because it gets whopping sales taxes when corporations spend all their profits, but, the point is, the money doesn't go to the workers.

The government has thus been greedy. It has a special relationship with the corporate machine. The worker has become valuable in the eyes of the government only inasmuch as it contributes to the corporate machine. You are nothing but a money sign to the government. Will this be your father? Will this be your friend? Trump's main concern is to make corporations richer. He celebrates the advancement of corporations. He loves trade, he said. But we've yet to hear about his crusade for to spread corporate money to the workers. Unions are not the answer because they spoil the employer-employee relationship. To get this right, workers need to feel that their employers are being fair with them willingly. But if employers refuse, the only salvation is the government imposing a set of standards by which they pay their employees according to profit figures. It's called sharing the pot. There are ways that come close to perfect fairness, if governments wish to apply themselves to this method, but don't hold your breath.

If corporations don't want to share the pot, then the workers are mere cattle. The cattle does most of the plowing, and the farmer benefits the most. The farmer counts his profit possibilities, and the cow gets hay and water. The obvious solution is to make a law in which the workers get a certain piece of the pot BEFORE the corporation gets to spend money on its own growth. But if corporations are allowed to spend profits to evade taxes, money needed by governments will be taken as taxes from the workers to make up for the lack that corporations give. Yes, everytime a corporation spends its profits, the load for running the country goes to the workers. For the very rich, there needs to be a law: first pay your taxes, and after that sink what's left over for company growth. The workers can then be alleviated of much tax load...if government people are honorable enough to actually do it. I have my doubts.

The ground upon which cows eat has become terribly expensive because the government did not curb the increase in the price of land, God's earth. Governments like high prices, and are thus our worst enemies, and the enemies of God. They are condemning themselves. Governments always look after themselves first. When they need more money, up go the taxes in robbery. Governments rarely freely choose to operate on leanness. You won't find fair governments much in big-population centers, which are predominantly liberal. If liberal governments give hand-outs to the poor, they first skim some for themselves, we can be sure. We really don't believe that they give a hoot for the poor, the minority groups, or the woman who thinks she doesn't get equal pay for equal work.

As I like to say, I'm all for equal pay for equal work, exactly why the man should often get paid more. The female owner of a company knows exactly what I'm talking about. She does not agree with paying a woman equal money if the latter can't pump her muscles as large as the muscles on her man in the shipping-receiving department. The fact is, some 50 percent of all jobs (just guessing on the number) involve significant physical strength, and the fact is, men are stronger in muscle. Blame God for that, not me. It explains why women have traditionally been teachers, librarians, and school-bus drivers. It's logical, it's good, why change it? Why insult the truth? No one is prohibiting women from holding the jobs that require muscle; but bosses are not choosing them. It's logical, it's good, why change it? Why assault the truth? Why paddle upstream and waste your energy, thou bold feminist, without a head on your shoulder? Why do you start a gender war for the sole purpose of installing Hillary Clinton in the Blight House? Headless women seeking to empower headless women is so obscene. Please, we need our wives and our mothers to wear heads. God gave women some authority, but it turns to hot air up a burnt, cracked chimney pipe if they leave their heads. Please, keep your heads, for the sake of this ailing human race, when it needs good women most.

When did liberals ever send workers checks after increasing corporate taxes? Instead, liberals use extra taxes to buy voters. Liberals are more apt to give gifts to divisive minorities, brute sluts both men and women, pig-headed unions, racist Blacks, heretic Catholics, and hypocritical atheists. Liberals fuel everything that's twisted and demented before God, and they crave power by government. The liberal revolution started and succeeded in the United States while Democrats held a monopoly on congressional power. They saw to it to stack the courts with the Godless, their servants for political activism.

The answer for poor workers is not to increase the minimum wage, for this becomes counter-productive in companies that can't afford it. The solution is to urge, or to compel if needed (it's needed), the Walmarts of the world to profit-share with workers. Walmart doesn't get to open up more stores until the workers are happy. Besides, when it opens new stores, it robs the local mom-and-pop operations. Not happy with selling every household item it could stock, Walmart then started to sell food too. Does the government not recognize greed when it stares it in the face? Who will protect the business world from greed if not the government? We pay the police to chase home breakers, but allow white-collar mobsters to rule our every work day. The police are to cower before corporate bosses as though the latter were higher up in government than the police chief. It's become so strange to our senses of justice, and Trump is the epitome of this new trend to let the mobsters operate freely.

Why are Walmart workers powerless to get fair wages? The government has abandoned them in the name of "free market." A free market is identical to free speech in that the devil gets to play in both. Laws are defined as the prohibition to trespass on others with neglect or wickedness, yet the me-first government will not set up laws to curb the transgression of greed. More than half the Ten Commandments are not illegal in Western "democracy."

Democracy is itself an illusion. Just because people get to vote doesn't mean that fair ball is in action. If Christians tried to start their own political party, the media would not permit it, not even Fox. The Christians would get slime from both directions, and would therefore fail (without God's help) right out of the gate. That's because the devil gets a voice in democracy. Not until the world operates in a God-first attitude will the world be healed. If you think there's little wrong with this world, you're a hopeless beast. You have no power of reason; you are closer to the animals than to the target of God. You have missed the important things, just like Trump. And that's why Jesus came, to emphasize the important things. Trump is too big to fit through the eye of a needle. There is no way at all that he will heal America. He is powerless. His biggest achievement is to be the biggest braggart amongst all the presidents, the one who expends himself on creating a fabulous image of himself. The devil is just like that.

We Christians do not want the liberals in power, but we neither want Trump. If Trump would work to destroy the liberals, we could at least rejoice in that. Yet Trump is not at all on-track to destroy liberals. To destroy liberalism, you take away their media. You curb the media with laws. Have we heard anything from congress as to their fight against the liberal media? All we've heard are the regular complaints, as though they await some lawmakers to do something about it. You are the lawmakers, stupids. This thing is so deeply infested that it needs immediate attention. Yet Trump procrastinates as he wades at the edge of the swamp like one refreshing his feet, even while he throws rocks at it. Maybe he's trying to be the president that skips the most stones, so that he can take credit for it. He does seem to be skipping over a lot of swamp criminals. He's got both feet in the waters, and might just dive in at any moment. No one knows for sure.

It's not unholy to set up laws against free speech. The media would not be permitted, by law, to unleash any story from a government agency without naming the agency. It should be against the law for the CIA to deceive the public with a story not known to the public to be from the CIA. It should be against the law for the government to secretly use the media to manipulate the minds, wills or actions of the people. That amounts to a state media. Media bosses must be held to an account of such violations; the police must be compelled to act against media bosses until they get it right. The evils of the world need to be punished in order to curb them. Jesus will rule the Millennium with an iron rod because it's needed. No crafty bending of the rules, no false spinning, unless people want an iron rod to hit them over the head. The sound of justice. But Trump wields no rod of correction while the nasty children misbehave. The better children get abused by the nasty ones, and Trump is honky-dorey with it.

Trump just said: "I've directed the Attorney General's office to immediately go to the great city of Chicago to help straighten out the terrible shooting wave." That sounds like an order. Trump can order Jeff Sessions to do things??? That's news to us. Thus far, Trump gives the impression that he's not permitted. It appears that he is cherry-picking what he orders Sessions to do.

Trump is suggesting to the police to stop and frisk people, to check if they're carrying guns. This is a thing that we'd expect from Obama. I would be offended if the police were to come up to me, lay hands on me, without my ever doing a thing to be suspect for wearing a gun. This is not the way to handle it. Who put that idea into Trump's head, and why is he supporting it? Why does this issue get an order to Sessions? Is this the start of a national trend?

Trump seems happy to go into the mid-term elections with merely the talking point of the nasty attitudes of Democrats. But if he had fully unveiled the Democrat effort to topple a president, Trump could grant that gift to every Republican running for a congressional seat. But Trump has denied them this super weapon, and prime-time Fox news, which amounts to a state media at this point, refuses to criticize Trump properly for this failure. There is insufficient pressure on him to make him do what needs to be done. The biggest reason that Republicans started to win power after Clinton is that the people didn't want Democrats in power. The best thing to do now is to expose their crimes for which they are sitting ducks, but this president won't do it.

This week: "In a letter being sent Friday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., asked for “all communications and documents” surrounding the bureau’s interactions with both Sussmann and DOJ official Bruce Ohr (whose wife worked for Fusion GPS)." Why hasn't Trump already demanded these sorts of things, so that he can immediately show the people what was done by the Hillary campaign? There is no valid excuse from him. We all get the gist of what was done by Hillary, but Trump does not want to get the voters the details. He's simply not on the same page.

When Trump discovered that Rosenstein refused to tell his story to Congress, he sounded surprised, and merely scratched his head. Duh. We all know that Rosenstein won't appear because he'd need to lie under oath. And what does Trump do? He scratches his head and gives the impression that he doesn't want to talk about this little thingie, doesn't want to offend his buddy. Listen to him yourself, how he hi-jacks the subject to other characters when everyone wants to know about Rosenstein's fate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxBCcv4iyc

In the 4th minute, President Rump has the audacity to take the credit for exposing Strzok and Page. Motor-mouth won't shut his yap because he doesn't want to be asked about Rosenstein. He yaps about things we already know, but he doesn't want to fire Rosenstein, does he? He doesn't say he's very-seriously interested in talking to him again since his failure to appear. If I failed to appear in court, I would be arrested in order to send a message to others not to fail in the same way. But Trump let's Rosenstein off the hook so that others can repeat his snubbing of the lawmakers. Why can't Trump order Rosenstein to appear? He owes congress that much, doesn't he? Get your arse into that building, or else? Instead, this empty vessel, full of himself alone, says he and Rosenstein get along well.

It seems that, just as Trump and Rosenstein conspired to shimmy the declassification away from public view, the story came out on Rosenstein's treason that Trump didn't want out. There is no way that the president has behaved as expected, with that news. Instead of showing shock waves, he's mild about it. The thunderbolt we expected turned out to be a feather drop. He can't go on saying nothing; he'll make all his friends even more suspicious than they've already grown.

Trump is doing to China as the CIA under Obama did to Russia. The agenda is to make poorer both countries because they threaten the United States, all the more reason not to create enemies out of the two. This tack is very wrong. It will backfire.

All the media go lock-step daily on the same stories. It all looks so contrived, like a script prepared beforehand. Conservative media, all the same, day-in and day-out. They just copy one another with the same messages, too unoriginal, too theatrical. I'm feeling sick. The talk-show hosts repeat the same stories, hour after hour, show after show, each night, stories probably decided upon in the morning with Fox's governor present. Can they not expand on the news from show to show? It looks like brainwashing technique, night after night.

Just before the election, the sickening: "McConnell: ‘We Are Committed to Helping the President Get Wall Funding’" Has he no shame to lie that bald-faced?

A president of many organizations is treated as, and made into, a figurehead. He's the front of the organization, the symbol of what the board manufactures for their reputation and success. In politics, they are the pimps, and the president is the prostitute who excites the voters, to have sex with them. He tells them promising things, sweet nothings, everything they want to hear, and they get excited. He acts like the smooth winner, the satisfier, and they drink it up. In contrast, Jesus will tell us the things we need to hear to improve our standing with the Father in order to be better received by the Father. He was always the coach with his disciples, always prodding them toward the betterment of their behavior, to make them true winners. Trump cares nothing but that his voters get in line to vote. He is no savior, no solid stuff, and has no kingdom to offer. He's a wink and a smile and a vapor. He doesn't care if the people are abused by the deep state, he's made that very clear. He only wishes to defeat the deep state for election purposes. He's a spiritual tramp, fornicating even with the Bush circle that wants to tear him down. This is the sick reality, and in the meantime, he makes America more hated in the world in order to please the shadow government too.

Some say that Trump will act differently after the election; he's only positioning himself as best he can to retain power in this one. But there is another election two years after that in which he will run again, and so he will begin to campaign for that one as soon as these elections are over. Why will he change his tune after the elections? Especially if his/their strategy wins this time, he'll use it again.

Drudge headline: "Richest 1,409 taxpayers pay more tax than bottom 70 MILLION..." If that sounds like vindication of the super-rich, it's instead the evidence against them. They pay obscene amounts of taxes because they make obscene profits. Drudge spins the headline to make the super-rich look abused by governments. Matt Drudge is a pig; there is something seriously wrong with him. He's one of the problematic greedy weeds. I can read his spiritual values in his headlines.

The supreme court decided this week that North Dakota can demand from voters some ID in order to vote, but, guess what? The Democrats on the court rejected this...because Democrats cheat at election time, and the judges on the supreme court know it, and want it. That's the sort of judges that Democrats put up there.
https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2018/10/supremes-clear-way-for-voter-id-requirement-in-key-senate-race/

Another headline: "California Admits DMV Error Added Non-Citizens To Voter Rolls". Yup. There is a growing nation within the nation that cultivates the illegal culture. This is what Democrats want. They are thus no longer viable as a political power, yet, the frightening thing is, they get about half the votes nationwide, and 60 percent or better in the major cities on both coasts, and upon the Great Lakes. How will honest, decent people weaken this beast enough that it never poses a political force again? How does the nation get rid of, or change, the people who subscribe to wickedness in every form? This is a crisis.

Late this week, my week (ends Monday), news was out that Julian Assange can get his Internet back. But he and WikiLeaks are under the gun not to make any political waves on any country, which violates his free speech of course, exactly as the Americans and the British like it. My position is that Ecuador can force Assange to share no adverse political news that concerns Ecuador, but that he should be free to speak his mind, or to release information, pertaining to any other nation. If Moreno is going to protect the leader of WikiLeaks, he should also allow him to legally share news that WikiLeaks shares regularly. Why can the Washington Post leak state secrets, yet not other Americans through WikiLeaks? Because, the Post leaks what the deep state wants leaked, while Assange is willing to leak what the deep state doesn't want leaked. President Moreno is thus guilty of being a deep-state puppet and fellow fool.

Mr. Moreno, let us inform you that it is ugly for the CIA and FBI to leak to the Washington Post, and angelic / heroic for the average American or CIA insider to blow the whistle on CIA corruption. That's so easy to figure that one needs to wonder about the level of wickedness that operates in your soul. And Trump? Where does he stand on this very issue? Should Americans be able to blow the whistle? Apparently not, for even Trump himself doesn't do that, and he has the biggest whistle by far, as well as the biggest spy powers by far.

Trump is a farce. He will reveal information only when forced to, and he will hope to reveal as little as possible so as not to offend the guilty...who depend on him to keep the operating secrets. Yes, we hear time and time again that Intelligence "methods" should not be revealed, and, of course, those methods are often corrupt. It is very correct to reveal corrupt methods, even as it's very correct to reveal the names of corrupt operators. If the American media can do so, then so can other Americans through Assange.

The latter has installed a new leader for WikiLeaks so that whatever WikiLeaks does now cannot be blamed on Assange. However, WikiLeaks needs to be mindful that any potent leak whatsoever could lay a severe backlash on Assange's fate. This is where Moreno wants him, between a rock and a hard place.

---