Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.
With around 50 minutes until President Barack Obama was
scheduled to deliver his State of the Union address, freshman Rep. Randy
Weber (R-Texas) took to Twitter to let everyone know that he was
getting impatient, while simultaneously becoming the first GOP
congressman on Tuesday to call the president a "socialistic dictator":
A spokesperson for Weber's office later confirmed that "it is our tweet."
It was a classic troll move and perhaps a rather obvious cry for attention. As the National Journal reported
last year, Weber, the Texan who replaced retiring GOP Rep. Ron Paul in
2012, fancies himself the next "Republican troublemaker, if only someone
would pay attention."
Weber may have been the first Republican member of Congress to attack
Obama as a "dictator" on Tuesday, but it's possible he won't be the
last. In 2010, Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) tweeted his response to the president's State of the Union address, saying that Obama believed in "socialism," not the Constitution. This post has been updated with comment from Weber's office. Luke Johnson contributed reporting.
This newly released story from ENENews
is incredibly disturbing and the pictures below not for the squeamish.
While millions of Americans still sleepwalk through the dangers of
Fukushima, the animals and fish in Alaska tell the true tale while the
video below from Kevin Blanch shares that there is now scientific proof
that the deaths of seals in Alaska were due to radiation from
Fukushima.
Reports: White ‘goo’ everywhere in Alaska seal, crows won’t
touch it… yet they eat people’s roofs — Slime in ones mouth, kidney
almost black — Another appeared to change color — Hairless one seen
recently: “We all still have sick seals here!” (Much more below)
Local Environmental Observers (LEO) Network,
Oct. 24, 2013: Hairless seal near Shishmaref— Shishmaref Alaska.
October 19, 2013 (seals, subsistence) My friend and her husband shot a
spotted seal at the mouth of Serpentine River on Saturday Oct. 19th as
they were pulling it in the boat they notice it was a hairless seal, she
didn’t have anything to take a picture with. Just to let you know we
all still have sick seals here! [...
Local Environmental Observers (LEO) Network,
Updated Oct. 8, 2013: Sick spotted seal — Eek, Alaska, April 12, 2013
(marine mammal) [...] hunter reported that he had caught a spotted seal
that he thought was sick. He then proceeded to gut the marine animal and
found there was white puss or goo like substance along the muscle
tissue everywhere. [...] a very small bit of the fat was chewed on and
nothing else. We have crows, they are known to eat just about anything,
even silicone off the roof… this animal is not being touched. [...]
House Republicans are getting ready to surrender: There will be no serious fight over the debt limit.
The
most senior figures in the House Republican Conference are privately
acknowledging that they will almost certainly have to pass what’s called
a clean debt ceiling increase in the next few months, abandoning the
central fight that has defined their three-year majority. Continue Reading
The reason for the shift in dynamics in this fight is
clear. Congress has raised the debt limit twice in a row without drastic
policy concessions from President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats,
essentially ceding ground to Democrats. Obama and Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are again ruling out negotiations over the nation’s
borrowing limit, which would leave Republicans fighting against a
unified Democratic front. It’s a tricky situation for the GOP in an
election year: They would have to pass a clean debt limit bill or risk
default.
(Also on POLITICO: Boehner, unchained)
The vast majority of Democrats will vote against everything except a
clean debt ceiling increase, so if Republicans try to tack extraneous
policy onto a debt ceiling measure, they’ll have to pass it on their
own. At least a dozen Republican aides and lawmakers are highly
skeptical they will be able to craft something that will attract the
support of 217 GOP lawmakers. In short, Republicans have few options and
even less time: The Obama administration says the debt limit must be
raised by the end of February. Republicans, though, are skeptical of
that date.
“I’ve been saying publicly that once we voted for the budget, you
knew that you were going to get a clean debt ceiling,” said conservative
Rep. Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho), referring to the recently passed budget
deal that he voted against. “The time to fight for spending cuts is when
you’re talking about spending, not at debt ceiling time. So when people
caved on the budget and caved on the [Ryan-Murray] agreement, it’s
really hard for them to come back and say, ‘We don’t want to increase
the debt ceiling’ when they’ve already voted for something that
increases the debt.”
Labrador added, “In my opinion, we should just pass a debt ceiling
with Democratic votes, then they can go back to their constituents and
explain why they don’t want to reform the way Washington is doing
business.”
(Also on POLITICO: House bans Obamacare subsidies for abortions)
It’s against this backdrop that House Republicans are heading
Wednesday to their annual policy retreat in Cambridge, Md. Unlike in
past years, Republicans are intent on developing an agenda that goes
beyond fiscal issues, holding a major session on immigration reform
where Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) intends to unveil the broad
principles that will guide the overhaul process in the House.
Discussion about what Republicans will try to extract as a concession
for raising the borrowing limit won’t be completely absent from the
gathering on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Some in the party are already
discussing attaching to the debt limit bill a provision to eliminate
so-called health insurance risk corridors — a mechanism that allows
health insurance companies to avoid premium spikes. Language that would
instruct Obama to approve the Keystone XL pipeline has also been
discussed.
Republicans might tack something onto legislation in an opening
gambit, but observers would be wise to ignore it: It’s mostly just
theater.
(Also on POLITICO: Paul: GOP can win back young voters)
Abandoning a fight over the debt ceiling would be a major shift for
Republicans. The creditworthiness of the United States has been at risk
several times since Speaker John Boehner took the gavel in 2011.
Repeatedly flirting with a debt default has been a political mess for
Republicans, but these fights have forced Washington to cut trillions of
dollars in spending.
The GOP has an easy out: They say Obama doesn’t want to negotiate.
“It’s clear that after watching what happened last fall, that the
president is willing to take this country to default or shutdown … in
order to cement his spending programs,” said Rep. Tom Graves (R-Ga.),
who was a leading figure in the unsuccessful fight to strip funding from
Obamacare during last fall’s government spending skirmish. “It’s very
unfortunate that he’s unwilling to negotiate solutions that would fix
some of these problems.”
Of course, shifting dynamics in either the Republican or Democratic
Party could spark a fight over the borrowing limit. If Republicans find a
proposal that could attract 217 of their own members — the number
needed for House passage — Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor
(R-Va.) would put that bill on the floor. If they can craft a proposal
that attracts significant Democratic support, that could also change the
political dynamic. Neither appear likely.
Budget politics will get some time at the retreat: Former
Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin will hold an
hourlong session on “America’s fiscal crisis.”
But no one is as dug in as they were in years past. Boehner, speaking
to reporters Tuesday, didn’t seem nearly as resolute in holding up the
debt limit as he has been in the past. The menu of options for dealing
with the debt limit is thinning, he said.
“I don’t think we Republicans want to default on our debt,” Boehner
said during a news conference at the Republican National Committee
headquarters. “Secondly, the president has made clear he doesn’t want to
negotiate. Thirdly, it’s become obvious to me after having tried to
work with the president for the last three years that he will not deal
with our long-term spending problems unless Republicans agree to raise
taxes. And we are not going to raise taxes. And so the options available
continue to be narrower in terms of how we address the issue of the
debt ceiling, but I’m confident we’ll be able to find a way.”
The deadline is rapidly approaching. In a letter to Boehner, Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew said Congress should lift the debt limit some time
in February. The Obama administration would like to see the ceiling
lifted before Feb. 7 — although that might be difficult. Treasury said
it must be done before the end of the month. Many senior Republican
aides doubt this calculation but refuse to give an estimate of their
own.
For now, conservatives aren’t giving up the fight. Rep. James
Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of leadership who is running for the
Senate, is advocating for entitlement cuts to ride along the debt
ceiling. That’s a virtual nonstarter for the Republican leadership.
Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, chairman of the conservative Republican
Study Committee, said he doesn’t “want to see a clean debt ceiling
pass.” But, in an acknowledgement of the political distance between
Republicans and the president, Scalise said: “Right now, you don’t see
the president being willing to talk about solving the spending problem
in Washington. We still need to push for that. That’s something I am
still very interested in addressing.”
The political dynamics of abandoning the fight are tough for a
Republican Party that’s made its mark by promising to get the nation’s
fiscal house in order.
“If we can work through [the budget agreement], we can find a way to
work that issue as well,” National Republican Congressional Committee
Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon said. “Stay tuned, we’ll come up with
something on that.”
The government has been compiling a list of names since the 1980′s called “Main Core“.
It contains the names of people who it considers to be ‘threats’ and
would be the victims of having their constitutional rights ‘suspended’
in the event of an emergency or if martial law is declared. They would
be the first to be tracked, detained, questioned, and basically targeted
for detention due to being labeled a threat of some sort.
The criteria for being placed on the list is rather loose, as is the
criteria for a “national emergency”, however government sources have
said that if you’re on the list that you can plan on being detained
should martial law be declared. A senior government official, who’s
served with 5 administrations, said that “There exists a database of
Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are
considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be
incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of
the state’ almost instantaneously.”
Even though this program has been around since the 80′s, one can’t
help but wonder if the post 9/11 NSA has used its spy programs to
exponentially expand the list, which is a terrifying prospect if you’re
one of the people the DHS has labeled as a “domestic terrorist” for your
conservative values. We know that the FBI, Defense Department and local
police have worked to infiltrate and spy on peaceful domestic groups
because they were seen as threats, and the revelations from Snowden have
shown us that the NSA reads our Facebook posts, scans our emails,
follows our Twitter accounts, listens to our phone calls, etc.
So can we assume that anybody who’s ever spoken out against the
government is on the list and will be the first to be paid a visit
should SHTF? So much for the massive spy network being used to ‘protect’
us from terrorism.
In a Salon.com article last year one of their journalists did some
digging into Main Core and what he found merely confirms what Snowden
had to say. His article was lengthy and detailed, but a main part that
stuck out was this;
“The following information seems to be fair game for
collection without a warrant: the e-mail addresses you send to and
receive from, and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers
you dial, the numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of
the calls; the Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web
searches; the destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts
and locations of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you
purchase on credit cards. All of this information is archived on
government supercomputers and, according to sources, also fed into the
Main Core database.”
As of 2008 it was well known the list had over 8 million people on it
and since then billions have been spent to expand the surveillance
operations and identify enemies of the state. In an article last summer
an anonymous government official spoke to a reporter and had this to
say;
“We know all this already,” I stated. He looked at me,
giving me a look like I’ve never seen, and actually pushed his finger
into my chest. “You don’t know jack,” he said, “this is bigger than you
can imagine, bigger than anyone can imagine. This administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list. If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If
you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative
bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy
threat list,”
If that’s not enough to send chills down your spine think about this,
the government is building a massive data center out in Utah to store
the 2.1 gigabits per hour it collects and keep it for easy indexing.
So what started out as a means to protect us has been transformed
into a surveillance monster that’s being used against us, to protect the
government and the people within it if things go south. Unfortunately
the mainstream media won’t report on this and if they do it’s to
‘reassure’ us that the NSA and its spy programs are there for our
‘protection’, meanwhile it being used to figure out who to round up when
the failed policies of our government finally catch up to us and our
economy collapses before our eyes.
This report discloses that the government has been compiling a list of names since the 1980′s called “Main Core“.
This list contains the names of people who it considers to be ‘threats’
and would be the victims of having their constitutional rights
‘suspended’ in the event of an emergency or if martial law is declared.
These people would be the first to be tracked, detained, questioned, and
basically targeted for detention due to being labeled a threat of some
sort.
The criteria for being placed on the list is rather loose, as is the
criteria for a “national emergency”, however government sources have
said that if you’re on the list that you can plan on being detained
should martial law be declared. A senior government official, who’s
served with 5 administrations, said that “There exists a
database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial
reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic, might be
incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies
of the state’ almost instantaneously.”
Even though this program has been around since the 80′s, one can’t
help but wonder if the post 9/11 NSA has used its spy programs to
exponentially expand the list, which is a terrifying prospect if you’re
one of the people the DHS has labeled as a “domestic terrorist” for your
conservative values. We know that the FBI, Defense Department and local
police have worked to infiltrate and spy on peaceful domestic groups
because they were seen as threats, and the revelations from Snowden have
shown us that the NSA reads our Facebook posts, scans our emails,
follows our Twitter accounts, listens to our phone calls, etc.
So can we assume that anybody who’s ever spoken out against the
government is on the list and will be the first to be paid a visit
should SHTF? So much for the massive spy network being used to ‘protect’
us from terrorism. In a Salon.com article last year one
of their journalists did some digging into Main Core and what he found
merely confirms what Snowden had to say. His article was lengthy and
detailed, but a main part that stuck out was this;
“The following information seems to be fair game for collection
without a warrant: the e-mail addresses you send to and receive from,
and the subject lines of those messages; the phone numbers you dial, the
numbers that dial in to your line, and the durations of the calls; the
Internet sites you visit and the keywords in your Web searches; the
destinations of the airline tickets you buy; the amounts and locations
of your ATM withdrawals; and the goods and services you purchase on
credit cards. All of this information is archived on government
supercomputers and, according to sources, also fed into the Main Core
database.”
As of 2008 it was well known the list had over 8 million people on it
and since then billions have been spent to expand the surveillance
operations and identify enemies of the state. In an article last summer
an anonymous government official spoke to a reporter and had this to
say;
“We know all this already,” I stated. He looked at me, giving me a
look like I’ve never seen, and actually pushed his finger into my chest.
“You don’t know jack,” he said, “this is bigger than you can imagine,
bigger than anyone can imagine. This administration is collecting names of sources, whistle blowers and their families, names of media sources and everybody they talk to and have talked to, and they already have a huge list. If you’re not working for MSNBC or CNN, you’re probably on that list. If
you are a website owner with a brisk readership and a conservative
bent, you’re on that list. It’s a political dissident list, not an enemy
threat list,”
If that’s not enough to send chills down your spine think about this,
the government is building a massive data center out in Utah to store
the 2.1 gigabits per hour it collects and keep it for easy indexing.
So what started out as a means to protect us has been transformed
into a surveillance monster that’s being used against us, to protect the
government and the people within it if things go south. Unfortunately
the mainstream media won’t report on this and if they do it’s to
‘reassure’ us that the NSA and its spy programs are there for our
‘protection’, meanwhile it being used to figure out who to round up when
the failed policies of our government finally catch up to us and our
economy collapses before our eyes. The constitution is no longer
effective in protecting our God given rights. Critical Reads: More News Mainstream Media Chooses To Ignore By Josey Wales, Click Here!
Katy Perry: Illuminati Priestess Conducts Witchcraft Ceremony In Front Of The Entire World
By Michael Snyder, on January 27th, 2014
Did
you see Katy Perry’s performance at the Grammys? It was essentially an
Illuminati-themed occult ritual. Various media reports say that Perry
“dressed up as a witch”, and her performance included a Knights Templar
cross emblazoned across her chest, a beast with Moloch horns, dancers in
dark robes with devil horns protruding from their heads, and pole
dancing with a broom. At the end of the “ceremony”, Perry was “burned
at the stake” as the song ended. All of this hardcore occult symbolism
did not get into her performance by accident. The attention to detail
that this performance exhibited shows that someone put a lot of thought
and effort into it. So was Perry actually kidding when she said that
she had “sold my soul to the devil”
during a television interview a few years ago? The kind of stuff that
Perry is doing now is not for amateurs. She is either working with
someone who is deep into the occult or she is deep into it herself. And
of course the elite absolutely love this stuff. Even if you don’t
believe in “occult rituals” or “Illuminati symbolism”, it is important
to remember that the elite do. In fact, many of them are completely
obsessed with this stuff. And they are more than happy to promote any
performer that embraces their world. That is why we see this stuff pop
up in high profile public performances time after time after time.
But without a doubt, Kary Perry has taken things to an entirely new level. A YouTube video that contains footage of her entire performance is posted below. However, it should be noted that this is not appropriate for children to watch, so please use discretion…
Needless to say, her performance immediately prompted strong
reactions all over the world. The following are just a few of the
things that people were saying about it on Twitter…
One user tweeted: “I mean they showed Katy Perry ‘s demonic witchcraft performance & I’m like oh that’s talent?”
Another said, “Katy Perry promoting witchcraft, demons, magic,
Satanism, the dark horse with demonic red eyes of the apocalypse ready
for the perfect storm.”
“Katy Perry pole dancing on a witchcraft broom stick; everything I’ve ever aspired to be.”
“Katy Perry went from singing Country Gospel Music to Witchcraft on Tv….. Well then..”
“This Katy Perry performance look like some Witchcraft Devil Work”
And of course this is hardly the first time these kinds of symbols have appeared in Perry’s performances.
She appears to be someone that fully embraces the darkness.
For me, one of the most striking examples of this is her song “E.T.”
in which she expresses her desire to have sex with an “extraterrestrial”
who also could “be the devil”…
You’re so hypnotizing Could you be the devil?
Could you be an angel?
Your touch magnetizing
Feels like I am floating
Leaves my body glowing
They say, be afraid
You’re not like the others
Futuristic lover Different DNA
They don’t understand you [Pre-Chorus]
You’re from a whole ‘nother world
A different dimension
You open my eyes
And I’m ready to go
Lead me into the light
Kiss me, ki-ki-kiss me
Infect me with your love and Fill me with your poison
Take me, ta-ta-take me
Wanna be a victim Ready for abduction
Boy, you’re an alien
Your touch so foreign
It’s supernatural Extraterrestrial [Verse 2]
You’re so supersonic
Wanna feel your powers
Stun me with your lasers
Your kiss is cosmic
Every move is magic [Pre-Chorus]
You’re from a whole ‘nother world
A different dimension
You open my eyes
And I’m ready to go
Lead me into the light [Chorus]
Kiss me, ki-ki-kiss me
Infect me with your love and Fill me with your poison
Take me, ta-ta-take me
Wanna be a victim Ready for abduction
Boy, you’re an alien
Your touch so foreign
It’s supernatural Extraterrestrial [Bridge]
This is transcendental
On another level
Boy, you’re my lucky star
I wanna walk on your wave length
And be there when you vibrate
For you I’ll risk it all [Chorus]
Kiss me, ki-ki-kiss me
Infect me with your love and Fill me with your poison
Take me, ta-ta-take me
Wanna be a victim Ready for abduction
Boy, you’re an alien
Your touch so foreign
It’s supernatural Extraterrestrial
You have to be blind not to see what Perry is talking about in this song.
And the video for this song makes this message even more clear. You can watch it right here. It has been watched more than 256 million times on YouTube so far.
Having sex with “extraterrestrials”, “aliens”, “demons” or “the gods”
is something that only those deep into the occult are into. And Katy
Perry is introducing these concepts to millions upon millions of young
kids around the globe.
And what do you think is going to happen to these kids as they sing these words over and over out loud and in their minds?
That is why the elite love performers like Katy Perry so much. They
are the perfect platform for indoctrinating the youth of the planet into
the occult one world religion that they have planned.
In fact, nearly all of the top music acts are into this stuff these days. In a previous article,
I discussed the Illuminati themes that permeate the music and
performances of Jay Z and his wife Beyonce. At the Grammys, this time
there was not too much of that from Jay Z and Beyonce. Instead, they
seemed content to be as lewd as possible. The following is how the Daily Mail described Beyonce’s performance…
Beyoncé’s Grammy Awards performance was slammed by
concerned parents on Sunday as they deemed the incredibly risqué routine
too explicit for children to watch.
The 32-year-old singer wore a revealing black thong bodysuit over
fishnet tights to perform a rendition of her hit Drunk In Love alongside
husband Jay Z at the Staples Center in downtown Los Angeles.
Beyoncé’s sexy dance routine, which aired at 8pm on both coasts and
at 7pm central time, had many furious parents posting comments on social
media that the performance was ‘disrespectful’, had ‘no class’ and was
entirely inappropriate for young viewers.
So what do you think about all of this?
Are you concerned about the occult themes in today’s music?
Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…
YOU THINK ITS NOT TIME FOR REVOLUTION YET ????
Valerie Jarrett Orders Companies To Start Hiring – Or ELSE....
( Remember her line it should ring in your ears!!! " Valerie Jarret –
“After We Win This Election, It’s Our Turn. Payback Time.)
This story has been HIDDEN by the Mainstream Media.
Valerie Jarrett... who hired Van Jones to work for Obama and is by his
side all the time like a little nigga gnome... made phone calls
personally to a number of large corporations days before Barack Obama’s
State of the Union speech tonight. The gist of that call was this –
either you start hiring workers NOW, whether you need them or not, or
the administration might just have to take another look at your business
practices. IRS anyone? How about the SEC? NSA? FBI? You name, we
got it, so break out your wallet and make our employment numbers look
better, OR ELSE.
In recent weeks, senior White House adviser
Valerie Jarrett has reached out to chief executives seeking commitments
that they won’t discriminate against the long-term unemployed in hiring
practices. The White House has scheduled an event highlighting the
initiative for Friday.”
__________________________________
This is the White House scrambling to improve poll numbers and overall
perception of the administration prior to the all important 2014
Midterms. They know that if this Midterm Election goes as badly for
them as current projections suggest, the Age of Obama agenda is done,
and in fact, much of the damage already inflicted upon America can be
pushed back.
Barack Obama’s investors don’t wish to see that
happen, which explains why the most powerful figure in the Obama White
House made an implied threat disguised as a personal call to business
executives “reminding” them of their commitment to start hiring workers.
This reminder will then be followed by a White House event to
publicize how effective the president is proving in getting America
“moving again”.
Coercion, threats, lies and deception – it is the Obama way…
UNLESS WE WORK AND PUSH BACK.. THIS PUSHING IS A ONE WAY STREET AND WE WILL BE DESTROYED....
OUR ANSWER MUST BE... TO REVOLT... THE RE WRITE THEN RESTORE
AMERICA !!
please pray this every day it is from luke 10 2 we need people to go out and tell the people jesus is come in
2 Therefore
said he unto them, The harvest truly is great, but the labourers are
few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he would send forth
labourers into his harvest.
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For
we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore
take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand
in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying
always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching
thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; 19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak. 21 But
that ye also may know my affairs, and how I do, Tychicus, a beloved
brother and faithful minister in the Lord, shall make known to you all
things: 22 Whom I have sent unto you for the same purpose, that ye might know our affairs, and that he might comfort your hearts. 23 Peace be to the brethren, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 24 Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen.
President Obama’s use of executive action to get around congressional
gridlock is unparalleled in modern times, some scholars say. But to
liberal activists, he’s not going far enough.
washington — Ju Hong's voice rang out loud and clear, interrupting the most powerful man in the world.
"You have a power to stop deportation for all undocumented immigrants in this country!" the young South Korean man yelled at President Obama
during a speech on immigration reform last November in San Francisco.
Waving away security guards, Mr. Obama turned and addressed Mr. Hong,
himself undocumented. "Actually, I don't," the president said. "And
that's why we're here."
"We've got this Constitution, we've got
this whole thing about separation of powers," Obama continued. "So there
is no shortcut to politics, and there's no shortcut to democracy."
The reality isn't so simple. Obama, a former constitutional law
lecturer, was once skeptical of the aggressive use of presidential
power. During the 2008 campaign, he accused President George W. Bush
of regularly circumventing Congress. Yet as president, Obama has grown
increasingly bold in his own use of executive action, at times to
controversial effect.
The president (or his administration) has unilaterally changed elements of the Affordable Care Act
(ACA); declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional; lifted the
threat of deportation for an entire class of undocumented immigrants;
bypassed Senate confirmation of controversial nominees; waived
compliance requirements in education law; and altered the work
requirements under welfare reform. This month, the Obama administration
took the highly unusual step of announcing that it will recognize gay
marriages performed in Utah – even though Utah itself says it will not
recognize them while the issue is pending in court.
Early in his
presidency, Obama also expanded presidential warmaking powers,
surveillance of the American public, and extrajudicial drone strikes on
alleged terrorists outside the United States, including Americans –
going beyond Mr. Bush's own global war on terror following 9/11. But
more recently, he has flexed his executive muscle more on domestic
policy.
In the process, Obama's claims of executive authority have
infuriated opponents, while emboldening supporters to demand more on a
range of issues, from immigration and gay rights to the minimum wage and
Guantánamo Bay prison camp.
To critics, Obama is the ultimate
"imperial president," willfully violating the Constitution to further
his goals, having failed to convince Congress of the merits of his
arguments. To others, he is exercising legitimate executive authority in
the face of an intransigent Congress and in keeping with the practices
of past presidents.
The course of Obama's final three years in
office, in which he has promised continuing assertive use of executive
action, will be shaped by this debate. The tug of history
On
the eve of Obama's fifth State of the Union message, on Jan. 28, the
president faces a steep challenge. His job approval has plummeted to the
low 40s, following the disastrous rollout of his health-care reform and
public outrage over massive data collection by the National Security Agency. Unemployment is falling steadily but remains high, at 6.7 percent.
"We're
4-1/2 years into an alleged recovery, and most Americans still think
we're in a recession," says William Galston, a Clinton White House veteran and scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Even
though Obama will never face the voters again, he has plenty of
incentive to boost his game. Now he's playing for his legacy, and the
judgment of the history books. Politically, he's playing for the final
national election of his presidency – next November's midterms, in which
Democratic control of the Senate is at risk. Reclaiming the House from
the Republicans is close to impossible. Divided government is Obama's
near-certain reality for the rest of his presidency.
Still,
keeping the Senate in Democratic hands remains critical to Obama's
legacy: It will allow him to confirm presidential nominees – including
most judges, who have lifetime tenure – with a simple majority after
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid engineered a rule change last
November.
Restoring public confidence in Obama's trustworthiness
and competence as an executive is also critical, as the president tries
to move beyond the "Obamacare" fiasco and National Security Agency
snooping. Republicans are already firmly lashing the health reform's
woes to Democratic candidates' necks. But nothing will impress voters
more than a sense that their personal financial situation is improving.
Cue Obama's focus on what he calls "the defining challenge of our time,"
growing inequality and a lack of upward mobility. It will be a central
theme in the State of the Union message, including a call for Congress
to boost the federal minimum wage.
Early in the new year, White
House officials were cautiously optimistic that the December budget deal
may signal new momentum toward bipartisan cooperation, at least in
future budgetary and fiscal matters. Republicans would rather keep the
spotlight on Obamacare woes than risk public blame for another
government shutdown or more brinkmanship over the debt ceiling, which
the Treasury Department says will be reached in late February.
But one point is certain: It's a new day for Team Obama. John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Clinton
and a turnaround artist, has put on his cape and swooped into the West
Wing for a one-year tour as a counselor. The president has also brought
back the highly regarded Phil Schiliro to oversee the continuing
health-care rollout and made deputy communications director (and Capitol
Hill insider) Katie Beirne Fallon his legislative affairs director.
But
it's the arrival of Mr. Podesta that has Washington buzzing. He ran the
Obama transition after his first election and then repaired to his
think tank, the Center for American Progress, resisting entreaties to
join the administration. Most important, his passion is climate change,
and he's a big believer in executive action – by the president himself,
as well as via agency rules and regulations.
"I think [White House
officials] were naturally preoccupied with legislating at first, and I
think it took them a while to make the turn to execution. They are
focused on that now," Podesta told Politico last year before agreeing to
his new White House gig. "They have to realize that the president has
broad authority, that he's not just the prime minister. He can drive a
whole range of action. They always grasped that on foreign policy and in
the national security area. Now they are doing it on the domestic
side." The (un)limits of executive power
Starting
with George Washington, American presidents have used executive orders,
proclamations, and other techniques to wield power, usually without
controversy. These moves can be as important as the Emancipation
Proclamation, and as trivial as an executive order allowing federal
workers to leave work early on Christmas Eve.
They carry the force
of law, but are ill-defined. Legal scholars disagree even on whether
there's a constitutional "bright line" that defines what a president can
do on his own and what requires congressional action.
"It gets
controversial when a president simply states that he's acting under the
power granted to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States,"
says Phillip J. Cooper, author of the book "By Order of the President:
The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action."
Bush invited
controversy with his aggressive use of "signing statements," written
pronouncements during bill signings that explain the president's view of
a law – including at times the constitutionality of some aspects of it.
In his first presidential campaign, Obama decried Bush's practice, but
as president, he has continued it.
In their use of executive
orders, Bush and Obama are virtually tied: In his first five years in
office, Bush issued 165 orders, versus 167 by Obama. But a bean-counting
approach doesn't capture the scope of a president's approach to
executive power.
"It's really the character of the actions, and their subject," says Jonathan Turley,
a constitutional scholar at George Washington University in Washington,
D.C. "In my view, Obama has surpassed George W. Bush in the level of
circumvention of Congress and the assertion of excessive presidential
power. I don't think it's a close question."
Many of Obama's most controversial power plays have come through means other than executive orders. Here are some examples:
•Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This policy, announced by the
Department of Homeland Security in 2012, came via a memorandum that
directs authorities to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in dealing
with some young undocumented immigrants.
If they meet the criteria
for eligibility, they are shielded temporarily from deportation and
allowed to work. The DACA program enacted many of the goals of the
failed DREAM Act legislation, though it does not create a path to
citizenship.
Critics say that waiving deportation laws for more
than a million people is not "prosecutorial discretion" – it's
policymaking by executive fiat, usurping the role of Congress. Simon
Lazarus, senior counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center,
disagrees, calling DACA "perfectly compatible with the president's
discretion in the immigration area."
Ten immigration agents
challenged DACA in federal court, saying the policy undermined their
duty to enforce the law. Last summer the judge threw out the case on
jurisdictional grounds, but suggested DACA was inherently unlawful.
Politics
also infused how both sides handled DACA. For Obama, it was an obvious
play for the Latino vote ahead of the 2012 election. For congressional Republicans,
even if they could have attained "standing" to sue – a major problem in
efforts to challenge executive action – acting to undo a policy that
helps sympathetic young immigrants would have been bad politics. So they
chose not to fight it.
•Obamacare. Last July, when the president
delayed the mandate for large employers to provide health coverage for
their employees by a year, his critics cried foul.
"Obama's not
interpreting the law; he's changing the law," says Mr. Turley. "He's
changing deadlines that were the subject of intense legislative debate."
The
Obama administration also did an about-face on the requirement that
members of Congress and their staff get their health insurance via the
government exchanges, without the government subsidy they were receiving
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Under the ACA,
they would not have been eligible for subsidies – leading to fears of a
brain drain from Capitol Hill.
Last August, the Office of
Personnel Management issued a rule allowing Hill employees to keep their
federal subsidy for health insurance. The plans offered through the
exchanges qualified as "health benefit plans" for the purposes of the
subsidy, OPM said.
•Gay marriage. Another bracing move by the
Obama administration came in 2011, when the Department of Justice
announced it would no longer defend in court the Defense of Marriage
Act, a 1996 law that banned federal recognition of same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court
went on to strike down part of the law last June, but that does not
lessen the highly unusual nature of an administration declaring on its
own that a law was unconstitutional, before the court had ruled.
•Recess
appointments. In yet another aggressive use of executive action –
bypassing the Senate in making recess appointments to key executive
branch positions when the Senate is technically still in session – Obama
may be on the verge of getting slapped down by the Supreme Court. On
Jan. 13, the high court heard arguments over Obama's three controversial
recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012.
Looking
across the landscape of Obama's bold record of executive action, Turley
of George Washington University doesn't mince words.
"President
Obama meets every definition of an imperial presidency," says Turley,
who notes that he voted for Obama. "He is the president that Richard
Nixon always wanted to be."
The Constitution states that the
president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."
Critics say that in decreeing changes to laws – such as the delay of the
employer mandate under the ACA – Obama has repeatedly violated that
constitutional command.
Others defend Obama, saying that the
president's critics are using the Constitution as a political weapon.
Mr. Lazarus says the critics "flout long-established Supreme Court
precedent and they contradict the consistent practice of all modern
presidencies, Republican and Democratic, to implement complex and
consequential regulatory programs."
Indeed, Democrats
defend Obama's changes to the ACA with a list of ad hoc changes the
Bush administration made to the Medicare prescription drug program when
it went into effect in 2006. But when he was asked directly about the
delayed employer mandate in a New York Times interview last July, Obama
didn't argue for the legality of his moves or raise the precedent of the
rollout of Bush's drug plan. Instead, he lashed out at his critics.
"There's
not an action that I take you don't have some folks in Congress who say
that I'm usurping my authority," Obama said. "Some of those folks think
I usurp my authority by having the gall to win the presidency."
Constitutional
scholar Lou Fisher is baffled by Obama's personal response. He believes
Obama was justified in delaying the employer mandate on constitutional
grounds as well as by "the practical need to avoid harming the program
through effective and premature implementation," as he put it in a
December article in the Boston Review.
"He could have argued that
you encounter things you don't anticipate" when implementing a major
law, says Mr. Fisher, who spent 40 years at the Congressional Research
Service as a specialist on separation of powers. "But no, he keeps
digging himself in deeper." Signature politics
The
politics of executive power is risky. Wielding it often, instead of
going through Congress, can look like a crutch. And it further poisons
the well of already icy relations with Congress. Then there's the issue
of an executive order's durability, and the reality of elections that,
sooner or later, bring the opposition party into power.
"Executive
orders can be undone very easily," says Mr. Galston, the former Clinton
aide. "If you want to make enduring change, you have to work through
the established institutions and procedures for making such changes."
Obama
says he prefers getting congressional buy-in, rather than moving
unilaterally. But getting Congress to act has become a Sisyphean task.
Last year was one of its least productive on record; its most memorable
act may have been failing to fund the government, leading to a shutdown.
Not that there's anything wrong with issuing executive orders as a legitimate function of the presidency, Galston notes.
"Within
appropriate limits, the president ought to use them," he says. "You
don't have to be a great and subtle reader of the Federalist Papers to
know that Alexander Hamilton, the father of the executive, talked about
it as the source of energy in the government."
But sometimes that
energy can create its own momentum. Obama's frequent use of executive
action has only whetted activists' appetite for more, squeezing the
president from the left even as his critics scream tyranny and, along
the fringe, talk about impeachment.
Remember Ju Hong, the young
South Korean man who was invited to stand with the president during an
immigration reform speech – and suddenly began heckling him? Obama's
DACA move was huge and controversial, but for immigration reform
activists, it was only a start. Why not just give every
otherwise-law-abiding undocumented immigrant a free pass while Congress
sorts out the law? some ask.
Obama clearly believes he can't do
that, but what's not clear is whether he might decide he can waive
deportation for another group, such as the parents of the young DACA
beneficiaries.
On the issue of inequality, Obama is urging
Congress to raise the federal minimum wage – a campaign that has
boomeranged back on the president: Progressives are lobbying him to use
his executive authority to raise the minimum wage for federal contract
workers, but he hasn't responded. Some liberals in Congress openly
question whether he's more talk than action.
On gay rights, Obama
has long faced pressure to sign an executive order banning workplace
discrimination against gay, lesbian, and transgender federal
contractors. But he has resisted, saying he would rather Congress pass
the broader Employment Non-Discrimination Act. ENDA would prohibit
workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation by most employers,
but the legislation is stalled.
On Guantánamo, Obama was
outmaneuvered by Congress after he signed an executive order early on
ordering the controversial detention center closed. And so it remains
open. But in the eyes of some legal experts, Obama is failing to take
creative advantage of his power as commander in chief in dealing with
the camp.
"Win, lose, or draw, it is time to get around Congress,"
writes Harvard University law professor Noah Feldman at Bloomberg.com.
"And if ordinary politics won't do the trick, going to the courts may be
the best option – because it is the only one." Checks and imbalances?
Obama
prefers to pick his fights and the timing of them carefully as he
wields executive power. And for members of Congress who want to stop
him, the remedies for perceived overreach are limited. Lawmakers who
feel the president has flouted the laws they have passed have trouble
getting "standing" in court to sue the executive branch.
Some try
anyway. On Jan. 6, Sen. Ron Johnson (R) of Wisconsin filed suit to
challenge the administration's decision to subsidize the health
insurance of members of Congress and their staff, against the letter of
the ACA. Sen. Rand Paul (R) of Kentucky is filing a class-action lawsuit
against the National Security Agency over its bulk phone-record
collection.
At the recent House Judiciary Committee hearing on
presidential power, witnesses presented other options. "The ultimate
check on presidential lawlessness is elections and, in extreme cases,
impeachment," said Nicholas Rosenkranz, a law professor at Georgetown
University.
Another witness suggested that Congress become more
assertive. "Congress has lots of power, if it chooses to use it," said
Lazarus of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "The power of the
purse is an enormous power, and I think that if I were you I would find
ways to influence policy in using the Congress's powers, which you're
not doing."
In addition, public opinion could dampen the
president's enthusiasm for taking matters into his own hands. In a
Christian Science Monitor/TIPP poll taken Jan. 4-7, Americans said they
did not favor a president taking executive action when Congress is
gridlocked. In general, 41 percent of Americans approved of executive
action in such cases, with 55 percent disapproving.
On expanding
gay rights, 43 percent approved of the president acting on his own,
while 53 percent disapproved. On the question of shielding new
categories of undocumented immigrants from deportation, 33 percent
approved of presidential action, and 63 percent disapproved. On raising
the minimum wage for federal contractors, 38 percent wanted Obama to
act, and 58 percent didn't. Obama's final mark
Year 6
holds the key to the rest of Obama's presidency. Can he regain the
trust of the American people? Will the ACA begin to work? Can Democrats
hold onto the Senate?
Obama's three immediate predecessors all
endured crises in their second terms. Presidents Reagan and Clinton
recovered politically and left office with strong economies. Bush did
not. Solid economic performance in the next year would go a long way
toward helping Obama recover, though presidents have limited ability to
affect the economy on their own.
What can Obama do to overcome the problems of Year 5?
"The
only thing in this image-saturated age is a real accomplishment," says
Jeremy Mayer, a public policy professor at George Mason University in
Fairfax, Va. "It has to be something concrete; it can't be oratory.
Oratory cannot save him anymore."
If Obama can say that 10 million
Americans have health insurance who didn't have it when he was
inaugurated, that's something. Ditto a breakthrough in the
Israeli-Palestinian peace process, or an end to the Syria conflict.
Foreign policy is often the refuge of second-term presidents.
Some
Republicans see an opportunity to move on immigration reform this
spring, though in piecemeal fashion, which is OK with Obama as long as
the bills accomplish his broad objectives – including a path to
citizenship.
But if that effort fails, 2014 could be the year of
executive action. On Jan. 3, Obama announced two executive measures
aimed at making it easier to keep firearms out of the hands of the
mentally ill. Podesta's arrival at the White House may foreshadow action
on climate change.
"John is a guy who knows how to get things
done," says Elgie Holstein of the Environmental Defense Fund and a
former colleague of Podesta's in the Clinton White House.
Ted Cruz released this video today highlighting the President's continued "lawless and abusive" disregard of the Constitution.
Obama's apologists like to point out
that as far as executive orders go, he and Bush are virtually tied: In
his first five years in office, Bush issued 165 orders, versus 167 by
Obama. So what's the big deal? As constitutional scholar, Jonathan Turley points out, it's the content of the EOs that should concern people.
"It's really the character of the actions, and their subject," says
Turley. "In my view, Obama has surpassed George W. Bush in the level
of circumvention of Congress and the assertion of excessive presidential
power. I don't think it's a close question."
Turley, who voted for Obama, says, “President Obama meets every definition of an imperial presidency. He is the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately
after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the
moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and
the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And
then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall
all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man
coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
A third suspect sought by police in the repeated beating of a homeless man has turned herself in.
Reading
police say 25-year-old Irich Colon turned herself in Monday in the Jan.
11 beating, which was caught on surveillance video. Authorities are
seeking a fourth suspect, identified as 23-year-old Floyd Patterson of
Reading.
The laundromat owner told police the homeless man was
permitted inside on bitterly cold nights. The man was sleeping when four
people from a nearby bar came in and beat him.
Surveillance video
shows the group returning four more times, each time kicking and
punching the motionless man as he lay on the floor. He was hospitalized
for several days.
The day after the assault, police arrested 26-year-old Keith Allison and 21-year-old Ana Ferrer-Reyes of Reading.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; 49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, 51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:22:54 PM by Sopater According to Joel Osteen – Pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, these first century apostles are wrong and outdated
and he has come out boldly to infer indirectly that Apostles Paul,
Peter, and John whom wrote much of the New Testament were wrong and need
to be corrected and rebuked.
When asked directly if people whom
are openly practicing homosexuals are accepted into the Kingdom, Joel
Osteen responded with “Absolutely, anybody is.”
We all need to
listen carefully to the words that this “man of God” speaks as he goes
on interviews so we too can find the errors in the preaching of the
first century apostles.
Joel does acknowledge that some things are
“sin” but says, “I don’t address these things from the pulpit. They
only come up in interviews.” When asked if openly practicing
gay/homosexual people will be accepted into heaven, Joel Osteen
responded, “I believe they will.” He makes no mention of the need for repentance.
Joel Osteen Brings Us Universalism
The doctrine of universalism is the belief that all people are “saved” no matter who you are or what you’ve done.
This
is a new version of the “good news” that is MUCH BETTER than the
message the Jesus and the Apostles preached 2,ooo years ago which was
far too narrow according to the way Joel Osteen explains his “message.”
“I’m for everybody” says Joel Osteen, “I’m not into excluding people. Jesus can reveal himself to anybody.”
The
idea is that since no one would be accepted if we are called to be
“holy” then all have to be accepted. So goes this logic. This doctrine
also believes that all roads lead to heaven so there is no one “way,
truth, and life that leads to the father.”
According to Joel, “sin
means to miss the mark” which, while technically correct, stands in
contrast to the teachings of many writers of the Bible that teach that
sin is violation of God’s Holy Laws so if by missing the mark Joel means
violating God’s ways, then yes, sin is missing the mark.
According
to the out of date writers of the Bible, the “wages of sin is death”
for which blood is required and for which a sacrifice was presented.
It
sounds a lot more harsh to say SIN is TREASON punishable by death than
to say it is “missing the mark” which is a bit incomplete. Sin is also
“to incur guilt, incur penalty” which according to the scripture is
death.
Romans 6:23 “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
When asked about people who live in open sin, Joel smilingly said,
“I’m not going to bash those people. I’m not going to be against those
people. They’re good people.”
So by contrast, Apostle Jude is “bashing people” when he said:
Jude 1:14-16 “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of
these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are
ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly
committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have
spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.”
Joel’s wife recently said to Piers Morgan. “It’s the people that
we’re after. We’re not trying to judge their sin. We want to encourage
them and love them. You’re only going to win people by reaching out to
them.”
Isn’t that so awesome! They are all about the people! They
want you and I be accepted without having to discuss anything like
repentance or righteousness. These are “judgmental” subjects that we
just don’t need.
These modern day ministry giants have gone on national television to essentially correct
Apostles Peter, John, and Paul to say … they are wrong … if you listen
to Joel Osteen. So many across the nation are so proud of this Pastor
and his courage in confronting the church fathers!
According to Joel Osteen, Apostle Paul erroneously stated to the Corinthians …
1 Corinthians 6:8-10 “Nay, ye do wrong, and
defraud, and that your brethren. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall
not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves
with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,
nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
In
saying this, according to Joel Osteen, Apostle Paul is being
“exclusionary” and should be rebuked and corrected. He is obviously
wrong and should never have said these things to the Corinthian church.
Corinth
was known for its sexual openness and promiscuity so for Paul to
“condemn” all these “good people” was completely out of order and he
needs to be rebuked.
When Paul wrote to the Romans he also was in
complete error in stating the following in the first chapter of his
letter, according to Joel Osteen.
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which
is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error
which was meet.”
According to Joel Osteen, Paul was absolutely incorrect and to state
that being a homosexual is a sin is being “judgmental” and should not
be tolerated. It is just wrong according to Joel Osteen. Many people
agree with Joel Osteen today and so, Apostle Paul is apparently
misguided and incorrect in his letter.
Joel goes on to point out the additional errors in the words Apostle Paul wrote. “Who
knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are
worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do
them.” Paul went on to write in the first chapter of Romans, which
according to the words of Joel Osteen, he is deeply misguided and
mistaken. Apostle
Paul should repent for saying such things according to Joel Osteen. A
growing number of people in America agree with Joel that Apostle Paul
should be rebuked for ever saying such things because Paul isn’t
accepting of people like Joel Osteen is.
Equally misguided
and incorrect according to Joel Osteen is Paul’s words to the Galatian
church. In his writings, Apostle Paul made stunning comments that were
clearly exclusionary statements concerning the Kingdom and those whom
are accepted, and in so doing has made grave error according to Joel
Osteen. See if you can detect the absolutely false
statements that Apostle Paul made to the Galatian church according to
the stated doctrine of Joel Osteen.
Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which
are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry,
witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions,
heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of
the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.“
You can clearly see what has Joel Osteen so unhappy that he’s gone
on national television to correct this! It is this type of rhetoric,
according to Joel Osteen, that is completely false and misrepresents the
God he serves.
Joel Osteen’s God loves everybody and there are no
exclusions because then, according to Joel, “none of us would be
saved.” So again, Apostle Paul was completely incorrect and should never
have written such harsh and insensitive words to the Galatian church
according to Joel.
I imagine Joel Osteen would say “shame on Apostle Paul for ever writing such hateful words!”
Now,
not only is Joel out to correct the misguided Apostle Paul, but Apostle
Peter was also brought into serious question for clearly being
exclusionary when he wrote these words.
1 Peter 1:14-16 “As obedient children, not
fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of
conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.”
According to the doctrine Joel Osteen has now shared with us all as
“his message,” being clearly more evolved and enlightened than the
archaic Apostle Peter, no one can be holy. We are left to conclude that
Peter is misguided and is being judgmental. What a terrible yoke and
condemnation Apostle Peter is trying to put on the good people he is
writing to.
Additionally, Apostle Peter goes on to say things that
are completely against the Lakewood Church Pastor’s God when he stated
the following.
2 Peter 2:6-8 “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the
wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and
hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful
deeds;)”
According to Joel Osteen’s public comments, one could conclude that
Apostle Peter was in complete error and deceived when he wrote such
things. What a terrible condemnation. He clearly did not know the
doctrine that Joel Osteen preaches or he would never have said such
awful and critical things.
Joel Osteen indirectly implies (subtly)
that these apostles were false and were critical and judgmental and
should NOT be listened to in America today. We all need to listen
instead to Joel Osteen and Oprah Winfrey.
Now Apostle John made
even greater errors if the benchmark is Joel Osteen’s “message” when he
stated some of the thing that he wrote which, according to Joel Osteen,
is just plain and simply not true.
It takes a lot of courage for
Joel to stand against these writings but he believes strongly in his
“uplifting and encouraging” doctrine that does not endorse such harsh
and judgmental statements as written by these ancient Apostles.
We
should all pray for Joel Osteen because he needs our prayers if he’s
going to continue to champion the cause of those oppressed and condemned
by the writings and statements of Apostles like Paul, Peter and John.
Revelation 21:8 “But the fearful, and unbelieving,
and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and
idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”
You see, according to Joel Osteen in a recent interview, “God
doesn’t see any sin as worse than another” and all are going to heaven.
Apparently in Joel Osteen’s bible, he has redacted the unpardonable sin.
So if you’re a follower of Joel Osteen’s then this statement by Apostle
John must seem just plain wrong. Apostle John doesn’t know what he’s talking about
and we need to listen to the wisdom of Joel Osteen. Apostle John
clearly was in error and should be rebuked for suggesting that people
who tell lies are going to have their part in the lake of fire. What was Apostle John thinking writing such judgmental things???
That’s
a terrible thing to say and no one, certainly not Apostle John, should
be allowed to say such things. As Joel says, “there’s enough
condemnation in the world” and we don’t need anymore.
Additionally, in his letter, Apostle John says things like …
1 John 3:8-10 “He that committeth sin is of the
devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the
Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in
him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. In this the children
of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not
righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.”
Now according to Joel Osteen and the thousands that agree with his
“message,” this entire passage should be removed from the pages of the
bible and no one should be saying such things. In fact, Joel goes on to
share that it is this exact kind of preaching that will hinder “church
growth.” Apostles Paul, Peter, and John listen up. Joel Osteen rebukes you all.
Now
listen, Joel Osteen and his ministry in Houston are all about people.
He is standing up for your rights! He is taking a REALLY BIG RISK
because … if he’s wrong, and Apostle Paul is right … then he stands to
be cursed! So he needs your support in prayer NOW!
Galatians 1:9 “As we said before, so say I now again, if any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be
accursed.”
Instead, you all need to listen to his message of universal acceptance
and lawless living without any condemnation so we can all “lift our
spirits” and be “encouraging and loving” to all people no matter what
lifestyle or choices they make. After all, according to Joel, God loves
us all and everyone is going to heaven so lighten up!
There is no
exclusive path to the Kingdom. According to Joel Osteen, we need to hear
this message because it’s the right message and anyone that says that
there is an exclusive path to God is wrong.
Joel would know, look at the size of his church! He is clearly telling you the truth more than anyone in history.
John 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
To his credit, in this interview Joel does call out sin,
however, he softens it and backs away from talking about repentance …
and when he is asked “what would you say” his comment is that he doesn’t
understand. You’re leading the largest church in America and you don’t
understand REPENTANCE?
The quotes are taken right from what Joel himself has spoken. He
positions himself on his own without being told how to answer. On the
one hand he wants to appease his Christian followers by saying “the
bible says” but on the other he clearly fellowships with darkness and
facilitates those whom deny the power thereof. 2 Timothy 3:1-7 “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive
silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning,
and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” TOPICS:Ecumenism; Religion & Culture; Theology KEYWORDS:apostacy; apostles; bible; evangelists; homosexualagenda; john; osteen; pastors; paul; peter; religiousleft; sin; theology; unitarianism; ybpdlnNavigation: use the links below to view more comments. first1-50, 51-100, 101-139nextlast
I imagine that Paul, Peter, and John would do the same to Mr. Osteen.
The Apostle Paul: But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived
Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the
simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and
preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a
different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel
which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. (2Co 11:3-4)
As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is
preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be
accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I
striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would
not be a bond-servant of Christ. (Gal 1:9-10)
1
posted on Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:22:54 PM
by Sopater
By Michael Snyder, on January 27th, 2014
According to Joel Osteen – Pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas, these first century apostles are wrong and outdated
and he has come out boldly to infer indirectly that Apostles Paul,
Peter, and John whom wrote much of the New Testament were wrong and need
to be corrected and rebuked.
In
saying this, according to Joel Osteen, Apostle Paul is being
“exclusionary” and should be rebuked and corrected. He is obviously
wrong and should never have said these things to the Corinthian church.