"disciple" wrote;
Kerry was also a member of the secret society skull and bones,
like Bush;
deaths head symbol on the SS caps in World war 2.
Kerry, I suspect, will just take orders from the same man that
I suspect
Bush takes orders from - the Jesuit general.
Vatican spies are infiltrated throughout the Govt. and legal
system.
Read about it in online book at this website:
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/153/153cont.asp
Antichrist system is rising up and taking hold, getting ready
for the
antichrist coming to power.
I think you're right, overall. Not too sure about exactly how the
said Jesuit general fits in with both Bush and Kerry at the same
time while Vatican spies are all over the place, as you esteem it
quite correctly. Maybe, just maybe, the Pope himself, Vicarius
Vicelllius Lucifierus, St. Malachy's final Pope, will be able to
prevent that horrible abomination, that heresy, that big pustule
of oozing pusbag of Antichrist coming. We gonna put that
sonofabitch on ice and bag his mofo ***** to Boston.
But, we can only pray, brother. Amen? Keep writing, I'm
listening, dude.
Dan
The following quotes show just how far the churches of today
have strayed
from the wisdom of their founding fathers.
Martin Luther
(1483-1546) (Lutheran)
"We here are of the conviction that the papacy is the seat of
the true and
real Antichrist...personally I declare that I owe the Pope no
other
obedience than that to Antichrist." (Aug. 18, 1520) Taken from
"The
Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers," Vol. 2, pg. 121 by Froom.
John Calvin
(1509-1564) (Presbyterian)
"Some persons think us too severe and censorious when we call
the Roman
pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not
consider that
they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul himself,
after whom
we speak and whose language we adopt...I shall briefly show
that (Paul's
words in II Thess. 2) are not capable of any other
interpretation than that
which applies them to the Papacy." Taken from "Institutes" by
John Calvin.
Cotton Mather
(1663-1728) (Congregational Theologian)
"The oracles of God foretold the rising of an Antichrist in the
Christian
Church; and in the Pope of Rome, all the characteristics of
that Antichrist
are so marvelously answered that if any who read the Scriptures
do not see
it, there is a marvelous blindness upon them." Taken from "The
Fall of
Babylon" by Cotton Mather in Froom's book "The Prophetic Faith
of Our
Fathers," Vol. 3, pg. 113.
John Knox
(1505-1572) (Scotch Presbyterian)
Knox wrote to abolish "that tyranny which the pope himself has
for so many
ages exercised over the church" and that the pope should be
recognized as
"the very antichrist, and son of perdition, of whom Paul
speaks." Taken from
"The Zurich Letters" pg. 199 by John Knox.
Thomas Cranmer
(1489-1556) (Anglican)
"Whereof it followeth Rome to be the seat of antichrist, and
the pope to be
very antichrist himself. I could prove the same by many other
scriptures,
old writers, and strong reasons." (Referring to prophecies in
Revelation and
Daniel.) Taken from "Works" by Cranmer, Vol. 1, pp. 6-7.
John Wesley
(1703-1791) (Methodist)
Speaking of the Papacy he said, "He is in an emphatical sense,
the Man of
Sin, as he increases all manner of sin above measure. And he
is, too,
properly styled the Son of Perdition, as he has caused the
death of
numberless multitudes, both of his opposers and followers...He
it is...that
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshiped...claiming the highest power, and highest
honor...claiming the
prerogatives which belong to God alone." Taken from "Antichrist
and His Ten
Kingdoms" by John Wesley, pg. 110.
Roger William
(1603-1683) (First Baptist Pastor in America)
He spoke of the Pope as "the pretended Vicar of Christ on
earth, who sits as
God over the Temple of God, exalting himself not only above all
that is
called God, but over the souls and consciences of all his
vessals, yea over
the Spirit of Christ, over the Holy Spirit, yea, and God
himself...speaking
against the God of heaven, thinking to changed times and laws:
but he is the
son of perdition (II Thess. 2)." Taken from "The Prophetic
Faith of Our
Fathers" by Froom, Vol. 3, pg. 52.
Quoted from GREAT PROPHECIES OF THE BIBLE by Woodrow.
©1984-2001 Chick Publications, Inc. All rights reserved
wacko jacko 2004 wrote in message
<4ef6e559.0402112048.45afddf4@posting.google.com>...
Predisent Kerry !!!!!
I like the sound of that ;-)
Best,,,,,,,,
Uncle Wally
============================
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:<402a867a$0$210$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>...
President Kerry
Geov Parrish - WorkingForChange.com
02.11.04 - Two weeks ago, I wrote -- in assessing the
then-probable,
now-all-but-certain nomination of John Kerry as the
Democratic
presidential
nominee, that "Bush would cream Kerry."
I was wrong. Sort of. Come next January, John Kerry will be
the new
President of the United States.
My mistake was in assessing the ability of George W. Bush to
run,
successfully, against John Kerry. That hasn't changed. But
what I left
out
of the equation is that Bush must also run against himself.
That is the
race
that will define November. And, as we've seen in these last
few days,
when
Bush confronts himself, it's his prospects for a second term
that lose.
Bush's unprecedented appearance on Meet the Press last
Sunday was a
revelation to the political junkies who watch Sunday morning
TV. We now
understand why this president has avoided news conferences
that aren't
pre-scripted, or any other environments where hard questions
might be
asked.
Put simply, he can't answer them.
The White House's best chances for November are to keep the
president
under
wraps at all times. That won't be possible. The spectacle of
a defensive,
evasive Dubya -- somewhere between the village idiot and a
stubborn child
refusing to acknowledge a very big fib -- will be a
revelation to a lot
more
Americans between now and November.
At this point, Bush's record leaves him vulnerable on
countless fronts:
job
losses in the economy; the catastrophe that is our national
health care
system (made far worse by his Medicare "fix"); the green
light for
environmental rapaciousness and other forms of corporate
malfeasance
(remember Enron, the one corporation most closely tied to
Bush in 2000?);
and, always, tax cuts and handouts for his friends who least
need them.
But
the steady drip, drip, drips that will undo this presidency
are Iraq and
9-11 -- the very things that, a year ago, the White House
was certain
would
guarantee its second term.
On Sunday, George Bush could not answer the question of why
the United
States invaded Iraq, and why thousand have subsequently
died, when there
was
no clear threat to U.S. security and when any number of
other countries
are
also ruled by vile people. All he could do was fall back,
time and again,
on
"context" and the fact that "terrorists with airplanes
attacked us."
This is remarkably thin gruel. Iraq had nothing to do with
9-11. While
the
White House has had, finally, to awkwardly back down from
its WMD claim,
it
also sold America on the ludicrous idea that Saddam Hussein
and al-Qaeda
were allies. Those questions are still to come -- and what
Bush's dubious
Iraq/9-11 link brings up now is only that Osama bin Laden is
still out
there. And that America's actions since 9-11 have inspired
far more
anti-American hatred, and therefore far more fertile
recruiting grounds
for
prospective anti-American terrorists, than ever existed
pre-9-11. Bush
not
only declared this war; he lost it.
By excusing everything under the mantle of being a "wartime
president,"
Bush
not only begs the question of where he was in the last war,
but of who
declared this one. In literal terms, the United States has
declared war
not
against any countries per se, but against a particular type
of crime --
and
against 19 hijackers who are now, by definition, dead. We
have been given
no
idea who we're fighting, no idea what victory would look
like or when it
might ever come -- only self-serving assurances that the
next several
decades' worth of U.S. leaders will be "wartime presidents."
And, so,
Bush's
serving in that context ceases to be an excuse for his
actions. If Bush's
definition of the situation is to be taken at face value, we
will be
judging
all of our future leaders by these same "wartime" standards.
And nobody
in
this country is about to give our political leaders a free
pass for the
next
50 or 100 years (or four years) now that George Bush says
we're at war.
Maybe Bush doesn't think America is a democracy any longer,
but most of
the
rest of us do; we haven't decided, any of us, to set aside
our
Constitution
or our common sense for a few generations just because *****
Cheney told
us
to.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 there is very little Bush
did that Al
Gore, or John Kerry, or any Democratic president would not
also have
done.
Domestic security would have been tightened; Afghanistan
would almost
certainly have been invaded. At its leadership level,
Democrats as well
as
Republicans are committed to notions of U.S. foreign policy
that smack of
empire. Where Bush has diverged from that consensus is in
the doctrine of
preemptive attack, his grandiose visions of redrawing maps
to our liking,
and in manufacturing the case for an aggressive war almost
unanimously
opposed by the rest of the world. What's worse, that war is
subsequently
proving to have been a disaster for all but the stockholders
of a few
well-connected companies and some newly enriched Iraqi
exiles.
All this was written about, endlessly, here and in many
other places, in
the
months leading up to the invasion. The huge number of
Americans that
opposed
Bush's war may have despaired that their actions, their
protests and
protestations, had no impact. But they did. They were the
first squalls
in a
steady drip, drip, drip that has eroded and is still eroding
George
Bush's
stature.
Monday, we got the latest: the key pre-war U.S. intelligence
assessment
of
Iraq's WMD capability was filled with qualifiers and doubts
in the
classified version presented to Bush, White House officials,
and the
Republican-led Congress, but those doubts were all stripped
out of the
version that was made public. Blame that on the CIA. Drip,
drip, drip.
Among
other things, the arrogance of this White House has incensed
so many
long-time Beltway hands in intelligence, the State
Department, and other
key
agencies that we've already had an unprecedented number of
leaks the past
two years. There will be more and more of them, damning
ones, as the
election draws near. There's much that we still don't know,
and that the
White House has struggled mightily to prevent our finding
out. But there
are
people who know, people who were there, and we'll hear from
more of them.
The Bush that ran in 2000 -- confident, charming -- would
have an easy
time
with the stoic and weathered Kerry. But in not only calling
himself a
president of war, but using that mantle as his excuse for
everything from
budgets running amok to drilling in ANWR, Bush is setting
himself up for
a
John Kerry buzzsaw. All Kerry needs do is be himself: a man
who is not a
boat-rocker but does have a conscience, a man who took great
personal
risks
in time of war, a man whose decisions in the thick of battle
turned out
to
be heroic. Voters will see that John Kerry, and then look
back at the
diminished, dissembling Dubya, a man loathed by many
Americans and viewed
with rapidly growing skepticism or outright distrust by many
others, a
man
who has predicated the most radical and ethically corrupt
administration
in
memory on a thin tissue of rationalizations. And, with Colin
Powell
likely
gone, a man whose plans for the next four years could be
even more
radical
and unsettling than his last four.
Kerry is a wash. He neither inspires nor repulses. Bush is
primarily
running
against Bush. He'll lose.
(c) Working Assets Online. All rights reserved.
URL:
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=16419
--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the
use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance
understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy,
scientific,
and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a
'fair use' of
any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of
the US
Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot
easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
public."
---Theodore Roosevelt
"I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the
internal affairs
of
Iraq."
-- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
_________________________________________________________________
______________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -
http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News
Source <><><><><><><><>
.
