The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: manna2
Correct me if I am wrong but Obamacare is only in the United States. How does that effect India, China, Indonesia, Africa, etc? The world's population continues to grow, the so-called New World Order has failed in my opinion if their goal was to depopulate the planet.

1. The globalist oligarchy operating much out of the USA is extending THEIR THEOCRACY's CONTROL mechanisms far and wide.

THEY established the Soviet Union as
THEY established Hitler as
THEY established and insured that Mao won China's civil war as declassified "Company" documents proved several years ago . . . there was a thread on ATS at the time.

THEY have also INSURED that poverty, hunger, disease, squalor has continued to be the order of the day for vast regions of the planet. They could have easily corrected all such within a few years.

THEY ARE ALSO BUILDING SUCH PROGRAMS UP SLOWLY. Gotta maintain that incremental frog-in-the-bucket strategy to avoid causing the pitch forks to appear en masse on their doorsteps.

a reply to: Annee

and their reproductive rights.

Yeah, violent murder of a child due to be born within a few days or weeks is SUCH an important "right!"

Can't tolerate those "Christian Dominionists" or any other "Christians" to hamper such a wonderful "right."

It's far better to throw your lot in with the NWO THEOCRACY wherein such babies will be born and THEN violently and bloodily sacrificed literally to satan.

Yeah. That sounds like the way to go. What a deal. /sarcasm

a reply to: AfterInfinity

Uhhhhhh hello?

I studied such in 1965 . . . before there was a known internet for the public.

The NWO THEOCRACY has been building for a LONG time.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

So upholding the law is a gender issue? The decision was the correct one if you consider the job of SCOTUS as being weighing the law against the constitution and the dissenting justices are the ones who failed in that job but attempt to use the bench for activism, not the proper role as delineated in the constitution.

This ruling wasn't based on the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it claim that "We The People" includes for profit corporations?

No this ruling was based on the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, which ironically outlines when it is appropriate for the government to burden religious rights. The ruling was also based on the bias presupposition that corporations have human rights, proclaimed by the Robert's Court in 2010, but only to the degree that effects a woman's access to FDA approved birth control, in this most recent case.

Equal protection? Not here. Clearly this case isn't based on the Constitution.

How is having 14 out of 20 mandated types of birth control affecting anyone's reproductive rights? How is not forcing someone to pay for something you want affect your rights in any way?

How is limiting the number of bullets contained in a magazine in any way limiting the right to bare arms? Same argument, in my opinion. It's the principle, not the number of contraception methods available. It's the fact that the Supreme Court has gone rogue and is not protecting the Constitution.

Of course it was based on the Constitution. Where in the Constitution is any premise that the government mandates what an employer provides as a benefits package and where in the Constitution does it provide that the federal government mandates an employer to provide health insurance?

You gun argument is flawed. The government has no business mandating how many bullets goes into a magazine, however, if the government does not buy me those bullets or forces someone else to provide them, my right is not infringed. The leftist "progressive" seems to think that a right not paid for by somebody else is a violation of said right, but they forget the difference between a right and an "entitlement." You have aright to free speech, as evidenced by your posting on this forum, but you are not entitled to have someone else buy you the computer you are posting from.

a reply to: BlackboxInquiry

Statesmen. INDEED.

However, the NWO folks

1. Invite them to join the NWO

or

2. Massively defeat them

or

3. Kill them as they did McDonald with the Korean Airliner they had the Soviets shoot down.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee
IMO religion is the easiest and most affective form of mind control.

If I was power hungry, I'd use it. It's all about the power and control IMO.

How many known atheists are there in Congress? None. How many suspected closeted atheists are there in Congress? About 20. It's easier to come out of the gay closet.

Did you know that, at least some, of the original Southern Baptist were descendants of the Puritans? Religious freedom my ass. They were all about forcing their British government into a theocracy.

This SC decision is just damn scary. And wrong in so many ways.

How is letting a private entity decide for itself the compensation package both "forcing a theocracy" or "wrong in so many ways?"

I will side with the women SC justices.

Not the 5 old Catholic males making a religious bias decision that only affects women and their reproductive rights.

So upholding the law is a gender issue? The decision was the correct one if you consider the job of SCOTUS as being weighing the law against the constitution and the dissenting justices are the ones who failed in that job but attempt to use the bench for activism, not the proper role as delineated in the constitution.

How is having 14 out of 20 mandated types of birth control affecting anyone's reproductive rights? How is not forcing someone to pay for something you want affect your rights in any way?

And getting back to the question you dodged, how is letting a private entity determine their compensation package "forcing a theocracy?"

You mean tweaking the law, finding the loophole, to make a historically bad and wrong decision based on the personal belief and control agenda of 5 old fart male Right Wing Catholic judges.

These 5 old men made a power judgement against women's health and reproductive choices. This will backfire on them. They have damaged the credibility of the highest court in a secular government.

Is Hobby a Lobby going to stop buying supplies from China? A country that sometimes forces abortion? Of course not. That would affect their business profit.

Moreover, this case is a perversion of religious freedom. Our values of religious freedom and tolerance were meant to protect individuals in our nation from the tyranny of government and business. Recall that in the earliest days of American history, it was not only the King of England but the powerful East India Company out from under the mutual thumb of which American colonists were trying to crawl. Moreover, as I have written previously, freedom of religion explicitly includes not only the freedom to practice one's religion but to be free from the imposition of someone else's religion. The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cannot be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on their employees. www.thedailybeast.com...

No the didn't. There was no loophole. THe job of the SCOTUS is to weigh laws against the supreme law of the land. If am not forced to buy you your computer, your right to free speech is not infringed up one whit.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I never saw Christ advocate for the government to force redistribution of wealth nor did he advocate a person taking from one person to give to another.

Socialism doesn't redistribute wealth, it eliminates it. Money is rendered useless, so nothing is being taken from you and given to someone else. No contradiction there.

He advocated individual giving and voluntary charity, both at odds with socialism and communism.

Socialism doesn't eliminate individual giving and voluntary charity, it just insures that those things aren't necessary for survival. Not everyone can do for themselves. So again, no contradiction.

And besides all that, socialism in one form or another is inevitable. That is unless you're willing to stop the advancement of technology and efficiency right now. How do you plan to deal with machines putting us all out of work? Will you say to the auto manufacturers, stop building robots because Billy needs to earn a living? Will you say to Google, stop developing self driving vehicles because cab drivers and truck drivers need to make a living? That time is fast approaching you know.

We need to adopt a system that benefits from eliminating jobs, rather than creating them.

Buzzy's concern is real in the following sense . . .

Ultimately . . . there are only 2 choices . . . which will end eventually in one choice.

1. The current option building is designed to be THE ONLY POSSIBLE CHOICE for global citizens--the NWO literally SATANIC THEOCRACY & ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.

2. God is not going to be silent or passive or totally out of the picture by any means. He has some unknown surprises in store for the satanists currently running the planet.

3. The oligarchy has sooooooooooo successfully propagandized the whole idea of satan into the ridicule bucket as they have used against disclosure of UFO information that folks really cannot well conceive of a satanic theocracy. It is real. It is in the wings. IT WILL BE FAR WORSE than the worst the Christian Dominionists could possibly engineer.

4. At some point GOD HIMSELF will remove the evil doers from the planet and perfect peace will reign. However, clearly evil "freedoms" will likely be removed, too.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Not sure what bluster you were talking about.

I think I get weary and . . . probably . . . energized . . . when it seems like these issues are soooooooooooo off the wall . . . how to put it . . .

when it seems like so many even very bright folks really are not remotely tuned in to what's REALLY GOING ON UNDER THE TABLE.

And, I was a bit surprised myself to realize that we agree far more than I thought. LOL.

I think I'm super grieved at the satanic theocracy of the globalists and how far down the Pike it is to being implemented overtly.

Compared to the Dominionists theocracy goals . . . it is many orders of magnitude far worse and it is far closer to successful and total implementation.

They make the Dominionists look like a legless man running a race against a bicyclist.

Not sure why else. Thanks for your softer tone toward me.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
...the literally satanic THEOCRACY that the globalists are probably 80-90% successful already toward establishing on the overt world stage. It wouldn't take more than a few months to a few years of some VERY UNPRECEDENTED dramatic events to make it a done deal.

If you say so, I do not believe in Satan or the doom agenda.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
"ALL" the evidence does NOT point in the opposite direction.

The only important evidence, that of an ever increasing population, indicates your theory is wrong.

a reply to: BO XIAN
All that is irrelevant as your main contention is that population is declining, it is not.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I never saw Christ advocate for the government to force redistribution of wealth nor did he advocate a person taking from one person to give to another.

Socialism doesn't redistribute wealth, it eliminates it. Money is rendered useless, so nothing is being taken from you and given to someone else. No contradiction there.

He advocated individual giving and voluntary charity, both at odds with socialism and communism.

Socialism doesn't eliminate individual giving and voluntary charity, it just insures that those things aren't necessary for survival. Not everyone can do for themselves. So again, no contradiction.

And besides all that, socialism in one form or another is inevitable. That is unless you're willing to stop the advancement of technology and efficiency right now. How do you plan to deal with machines putting us all out of work? That time is fast approaching you know.

Socialism always fails and even Euro-socialism depends on capitalism to have something to leech off.

Money isn't wealth, it is a medium of exchange. One can be land rich and money poor for example--look at farmers.

To "eliminate" wealth, a socialist has to take from one to give to another. If a guy is a good gardener and his neighbor is not, he will have more "wealth" in terms of vegetables or whatever he grows. To make things fair, a socialist ahs to take some from the efficient farmer and give it to the other. Theft is an integral part of socialism absent star trek replicators

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

By the time that their frog-in-the-bucket incrementalism is replaced with overt and obvious fulfillments of their centuries long plans, efforts and strategies . . .

the options for managing personal and family survival will be minimal to gone.

But go ahead and cling to your construction on such realities if you wish.

You will have only yourself to kick when that day arrives with a WHAM!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Where did I say the population

IS CURRENTLY declining?

I've merely been contending that a major DEPOPULATION plan is in force and making progress toward forcing the global population down to 200-500 million.

Thankfully, The Bible indicates they may well only succeed in destroying about half the world's population. Time will tell.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

To "eliminate" wealth, a socialist has to take from one to give to another. If a guy is a good gardener and his neighbor is not, he will have more "wealth" in terms of vegetables or whatever he grows. To make things fair, a socialist ahs to take some from the efficient farmer and give it to the other. Theft is an integral part of socialism absent star trek replicators

But if the neighbor on the other side of him is a good gardener, and gives his vegetables away, then you don't have wealth, you just have a bunch of rotten vegetables.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
Where did I say the population
IS CURRENTLY declining?
I've merely been contending that a major DEPOPULATION plan is in force and making progress toward forcing the global population down to 200-500 million.

That is contradictory statement, if the depopulation plan is 'in force and making progress' then why is the population still going up?

originally posted by: BO XIAN
You will have only yourself to kick when that day arrives with a WHAM!

If you say so, I am not concerned.

a reply to: BO XIAN

You said this in a post above:

REMEMBER, GROUP . . . THIS IS ABOUT THE GLOBALIST OLIGARCHY'S TYRANNICAL ONE WORLD RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT BEING FAR WORSE

THAN

THE WORST THAT BUZZY COULD IMAGINE FROM THE "Christian Right" "Dominionists."

Actually - this thread is NOT about Agenda 21 - regardless of your efforts to make it about that.

You see, BO, I am aware of, and have read "Agenda 21" - I am aware of the few elite that make the major decisions. I am aware that this has been going on since our Civil War, and long before. WW2 included, as well as WW1.

I'm wondering - have you read "Dr Zhivago" (Boris Pasternak) and "Captains and the Kings" (Taylor Caldwell)?

My "softer" tone was a response to YOUR backing down enough to talk lucidly and refraining from insulting the intelligence of others. I appreciate your willingness to find the common ground.

However - I, like AM, do not believe in "Satan", or "the Mark of the Beast" any more than I believe that the Dominionists are able to "discover" which "demons" are resident in a person, a building, a neighborhood, an organization, or a geographical region. it is nonsense.

As for the NWO - it is already here. It's too late to undo it. We have a global economy. YOU see the NWO/Agenda 21 as a plot to bring Satan to power - when there is honestly no such thing. I find it amazing that as a psychologist and sociologist (and professor, no less!??) you subscribe to these outrageous, ludicrous, doom-porn fantasies.

Jesus is not coming back. God in Heaven is paying no attention. Whether jihadists or satanists or dominionists think so is irrelevant. (I notice that you often mention "Attachment Disorder", which of course, is a very real condition, and perfectly preventable with good parenting and community-building skills. Yet those of us who actively work toward a healthy society using psychological and sociological theories are often maligned and accused of being "part of the scheme!." That notion is also nonsense.)

I regret that you, a professional, are so immersed in this "SATAN" theory. It IS affecting your health, and you know it.

So, NO. The thing I am concerned about may indeed be a smaller threat than the OP article makes it out to be, but it is NOT a trifling matter. Religious discord is at an apex. If the West would butt OUT of the middle-east, and desist with the bombings that Mr Chomsky rightly calls heinous war crimes - much would improve. Western Imperialism is a big problem, yes. But, it has nothing to do with "Satan".

As we have now established some modicum of common ground and understanding, please attempt to continue to modulate your tone in the thread.

I stated early on that your focus-shift deserved its own thread - please drop the "Satanists Agenda 21" part. It is not what I'm talking about in this thread.

SO - How do we stop this Dominionist movement from taking hold? By exposing those governors (Brownback, Perry, and any contenders like them) and Congressmen (Bachmann et al. and contenders like them) from getting power? By showing that they are off-the-wall fringe Christians? Because they actually DO exist. You can dismiss it as "a minimal to nonexistent problem" all you like -but the FACT remains that they are moving forward, and are clear about their agenda - and identifiable. (And yes, they WERE behind the Hobby Lobby case, but that is not something I want to bring up again. This is much larger than just Hobby Lobby getting their whiny way.)

Th "NWO Satanists"? Not so identifiable - certainly not running websites and such, I don't think.

How about we deal with the monster we can SEE, whose roar we can HEAR......NOW.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Again, this ruling was NOT about contraception, or even if the government has the right to enforce mandates on the American people. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act says they do.

This ruling was about bestowing human rights on some for profit corporations. It was about SCOTUS setting a dangerous precedent.

In all the history of the Untied States and corporate law, never before 2010 did corporations have the rights to free speech and religious expression. Corporations have no souls, can't be imprisoned or executed, can't vote and can't pray.

I would think that of all people you would see that. But, I guess NavyDoc, you're into protecting corporate interests before natural people's rights. Please don't tell me that the military is protecting my rights ever again.