My wife and I were alone in a plain bedroom, she was in bed and I stood off to the side. She looked to me and said that while she’s “on the chair” lately, she’s been praying to Greek gods (something she definitely never does in real life!) and I immediately knew this was bad, rushed to her side and knelt down to reaffirm to her that the spirits they worshipped were fallen angels (true or not, I’m not sure, but that’s what I said) and that there is one God and his son is Jesus Christ.
But as the words came from my heart and out of my mouth I was gripped by a familiar sickening debilitation, my speech was slurred to grunts and Haily’s body began to twist and convulse in front of me. In my past, and in examples across the world, this debilitation can be quickly ended by calling out to Jesus Christ for help. But this time the battle waged on far longer and was absolutely terrifying.
Despite my senses being brought to ruin right in front of me, I was given the strength to fight and using every ounce of power I could summon, the words “THERE IS ONE GOD, AND HIS SON IS JESUS CHRIST!” finally left my lips and like magic the “spell” broke and I awoke, alive and well in my bed. This experience of being oppressed while dreaming and liberated by calling on Christ to help has been documented across the world.
Natural-minded medical technicians expectedly have a much different opinion.
We must ask, why is the name “Jesus Christ” powerful to solve these problems? Is it just a perception in the mind of the victim? Or, are there spiritual laws in place and the “demonic” entities (if, as I believe, that’s what cause these problems to occur) are subjugate to Christ in the spirit world?
This malady has been discussed in previous posts on this site and is a fascinating subject that runs through the centuries and likely dates all the way back to the dawn of man.
Scientists classify it as some kind of bad dream, a bio-electric hiccup or a “bad” chemical reaction. But those with “eyes to see and ears to hear” may recognize it as something different altogether when seen through a spiritual lens.
The name of Jesus Christ is powerful! As we forge ahead into these crazy times, we must recall this fact, repent for our idolatry and come into a place of reconciliation, respect and reverence for The Almighty.
If so, ok–I’ll respect that based upon an apparently objective process of arithmetic.
Terrorists – Dead Terrorists = Less Terrorists.
May I offer some other objective data points?
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism recently concluded that from June 2004 to September 2012, between 2562 and 3325 people were killed by drone strikes in Pakistan.
Of those, The BIJ estimates that 474-881 were civilians, and 176 were children; however given ease with which we can classify someone as a “militant” I am very skeptical of the low number of civilians in that quote.
What would you do if your friends, family members or loved ones were wrongly killed in a terrorist attack? Would you retaliate?
General David Petraeus’ former advisor describes the tendency of Muslims to do exactly that.
“Every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement…” -David Kilcullen, fomer advisor to Gen David Petreaus.
Just how insane have we become?! What kind of propaganda have we fallen for? Why have we accepted it so WILLINGLY?!
Our military is destroying lives, ruining our credibility and stoking the fires of war relentlessly around the world by killing these innocent people and all we can think to say in response is, “Well, they shouldn’t be hangin’ around with no damn terrorists then!”
The number of high-level targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%. - Peter Bergen & Megan Braun, CNN
The below mini-documentary Living Under Drones is a superb and heart-rendering piece of journalism from Professor James Cavallaro of Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic, and Professor Sarah Knuckey of the Global Justice Clinic at NYU School of Law.
Their recently released report with the same title is available for free download here; it is shocking and an absolute must-read, must-spread far and wide piece of journalism.
This disaster of humanity is ours to end.
Among many interesting topics, Ron and Lew Rockwell discuss Romney’s geography gaffe about Syria being Iran’s only route to the sea, the “No way, I’M more pro-war than you” contest between the candidates, and the hypocritical critique of China being a major currency manipulator while we are running The Federal Reserve?! EH??? As the cool kids now say, “SMH.”
I’m getting hammered by conservative friends lately who are freaked out by ObamaCare, Obama 2.0′s Supreme Court appointments, etc. Watching this, it is just preposterous to think we can trust Romney’s current positions on anything important. Except of course, his desire for war, more bailouts, and assaults on The Constitution/civil rights.
Will we be brought to a place of suffering and humiliation so that the Kingdom of God can manifest? That may be the way of the world, time will tell.
Psalm 146:3 says all that needs to be said, “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save.”
This is a good summary from Mises Institute Chairman Lew Rockwell on how The Federal Reserve enables our global war machine, creates the disastrous boom and bust business cycle and devalues or money, driving prices higher.
“If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I’m quite certain it would end very quickly.
The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth is becomes distorted. -Dr. Ron Paul”
It’s a scary world and there are a lot of very angry people in it. To the people out there who want to protect America/Israel/Europe/wherever by bombing people in Iran/Afghanistan/Yemen/wherever, “I get it!” I really do. It’s scary as hell thinking about a nuke going off on a civilian population (unless it was in Japan and “it saved good Americans lives and ended WW2,” right?).
I don’t blame you for wanting to defend our country and innocent people around the world by trying to attack our enemies before they attack us, it’s fight-or-flight; human nature.
However I do passionately advocate a balanced, objective view before deciding to sign and drive the “Kill ‘em all, let God sort them out!” train.
Here is yet another foreign policy expert detailing the incredible risks that policy poses and the counter-productive reality of our foreign policy.
Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding. -Albert Einstein
Drone attacks create terrorist safe havens, warns former CIA official via theguardian.co.uk
A former top terrorism official at the CIA has warned that President Barack Obama’s controversial drone programme is far too indiscriminate in hitting targets and could lead to such political instability that it creates terrorist safe havens.
Obama’s increased use of drones to attack suspected Islamic militants inPakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen has become one of the most controversial aspects of his national security policy. He has launched at least 275 strikes in Pakistan alone; a rate of attack that is far higher than his predecessor George W Bush.
Defenders of the policy say it provides a way of hitting high-profile targets, such as al-Qaida number two, Abu Yahya al-Libi. But critics say the definition of militant is used far too broadly and there are too many civilian casualties. The London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates up to 830 civilians, including many women and children, might have been killed by drone attacks in Pakistan, 138 in Yemen and 57 in Somalia. Hundreds more have been injured.
Now Robert Grenier, who headed the CIA’s counter-terrorism center from 2004 to 2006 and was previously a CIA station chief in Pakistan, has told the Guardian that the drone programme is targeted too broadly. “It [the drone program] needs to be targeted much more finely. We have been seduced by them and the unintended consequences of our actions are going to outweigh the intended consequences,” Grenier said in an interview.
STOP THE RUSSIAN BEAR!!!
Or, learn to count, take a walk and gut the awful mess. This comparison of aircraft carriers should give some perspective to the war cries we hear against cutting our Imperial Albatross of Death.
An aircraft carrier is a ship that is capable of operating fixed wing aircraft, including jump-jets such as the Harrier. America has nearly twice as many aircraft carriers – 20 – as the rest of humanity combined – 12 – and America’s aircraft carriers are substantially larger than almost all the other’s aircraft carriers. The Navy likes to call the big Nimitz class carriers “4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile American territory” — and all twenty American carriers of all classes add up to nearly 70 acres of deck space. Deckspace is probably a good measure of combat power. The rest of the world’s carriers have about 25 acres of deck space, approximately one third that of America’s [until 2011, this number was only 15 acres, but new Chinese and Italian vessels upped the total appreciably].
There is no hard and fast precise definition of an “aircraft carrier” and some smaller aviation related ships are not included here. The Italian San Giorgio class small dock landing ships and Japan’s Osumi class Landing Ship Tank (LST) resemble diminuative aircraft carriers, but lack a hangar deck which would provide an enclosed maintenance area. Although Helicopter Destroyers such as Italy’s Vittorio Veneto and Japan’s Haruna and Shirane have hangars, these hybrid vessels are clearly outside any reasonable definition of an aircraft carrier.
The United Kingdom plans construction of a pair of CVF Queen Elizabeth class CTOL big deck carriers, and France has decided to build a conventionally-powered Second Aircraft Carrier to pair with the Charles de Gaulle. These ships will have a displacement of upwards of 60,000 tons, surpassing American amphibious assault ships.
Negotiations between Russia and India began in 1994 for the sale of the 45,500 tons full load Admiral Gorshkov, and on 20 January 2004 it was announced that India and Russia had signed a $1.6 billion deal finalizing the sale, with delivery expected in 2008 [by 2007 delayed to possibly 2011]. In April 2005 India began construction of the 37,500-ton displacement Air Defense Ship indigenous carrier, with delivery expected no sooner than the year 2012.
“Don’t believe the war propaganda!”
Kudos to Luke Rudowski for another great interview; this time with the superb Tom Woods, who also cites President Andrew Jackson’s defeat of The Bank of The United States as a pivotal point in history that goes largely un-noticed.
Check out Tom Woods’ LibertyClassroom.com to get more.
Harvard and Columbia Ph.D. Tom Woods is as clear, concise and conscientious as ever in this brilliant critique.
His LibertyClassroom.com is a marquee source to discover the true roots of economic prosperity and history that strikes fear into the heart of every statist and allows the free spirit of man to create a far better society than any government could dream.
Twenty years ago, as I was completing my freshman year in college, I was a full-blown neoconservative. Except I didn’t know it. Having concluded that I was not a leftist, I simply decided by process of elimination that I must be a Rush Limbaughian.
Like most people, I was unaware that any alternative to those two choices existed, or that in some ways they were two sides of a common statist coin. In particular, I embraced a neoconservative foreign policy with gusto. The way to show you weren’t a commie was by supporting the U.S. military as it doled out summary justice to bad guys all over the world. And frankly, it was exciting to watch it all unfold on TV.
I never gave the human cost of war a second thought and became impatient with anyone who did. War was like a video game I could enjoy from the comfort of my home. Devastation and human suffering were quite beside the point: the righteous U.S. government was dispensing justice to the wicked, and that was that. What are you, a liberal?
The Persian Gulf War of 1991 was the first U.S. conflict of my college career. During the months-long U.S. military buildup in the Gulf known as Operation Desert Shield I eagerly promoted the mission to anyone foolish enough to listen.
When war came, it was swift and decisive. Very few American casualties were suffered, while the Iraqi forces were destroyed. Some 100,000 were burned alive by a chemical agent or buried alive in the desert while making a retreat.
Believe it or not, that actually bothered me, in spite of how voracious a consumer of war propaganda I was. No one defended Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, which he launched in response to that country’s slant oil drilling, but was the outcome of the Persian Gulf War not a terrible tragedy for the Iraqi people – virtually none of whom had had anything to do with Saddam Hussein’s fateful decision – all the same? A far poorer country than ours suddenly had a lot more widows and orphans, not to mention a great many civilian deaths to grieve over and much destruction to repair.
In response to the upcoming Spielberg production, “Lincoln” author, professor, historian Thomas Dilorenzo writes the following to help us see another side to the man we’re meant to worship for ending slavery. The truth is far different than the story we’ve been told about the honorable and “honest” Abe Lincoln. History buffs and truth seekers will enjoy DiLorenzo’s work. His concise and compelling, “How Capitalism Saved America” was especially paradigm-shifting for me.
Thanks to the dozens of emailers who have sent me a link to the “trailer” for Steven Spielberg’s upcoming movie about Lincoln (Out Nov.16). The trailer says the book is based on the book by the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin. I reviewed the book here several years ago. From all indications the movie will be the typical extraordinarily misinformational whitewash.
That’s how I would describe the other sycophantic books Goodwin has written about Lyndon Johnson and the Kennedys. She is essentially a museum-quality specimen of a “court historian.” Her book Team of Rivals, on which the movie is said to be based, is the usual lame-excuse-for-everything treatment of Dishonest Abe. Like almost all other books on the subject, it reads like a defense lawyer’s brief for The War Crimes Trial of Abraham Lincoln.
For example, when she mentions that Lincoln was never a Christian, instead of pointing out the gigantic hypocrisy of his nevertheless quoting Scripture in his political speeches to dupe the public into thinking that God was somehow on his side, all Goodwin says is that we should feel even more sorry for poor old Abe than we do since he didn’t believe in an afterlife.
When Goodwin discusses how it was Lincoln who orchestrated the passage through the U.S. Senate of the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution that would have forbidden the government from ever interfering with Southern slavery, instead of stating the obvious — that Lincoln was obviously willing to enshrine slavery explicitly in the Constitution and should be morally condemned for it — she praises him for it since it “held the Republican Party together.” Yea. That, in fact, is the theme of the whole book — what a slick, conniving, lying, manipulating politician Lincoln was. Goodwin just can’t praise Lincoln enough for these traits, which are the gold standard of behavior for successful Washington politicians and their ideological hacks.