Tracking Earth's Future via Current Events, etc.

[Annoyed]

On balance i think the conservatives are better when it comes to judicial activism and have made marginally better decisions. I think it was James Madison who said its better to be a government of laws than of men. If that line of thought had been followed for 100 years or so then there wouldn't be much for the left to fear from a Trump presidency because he wouldn't really have much power. The god like powers government have accumulated in the past 100 years means that there is grounds for fear.

I disagree about which side has been more activist; the left has a long history of expansion of govt. power via judicial fiat rather than legislatively for the simple reason that they couldn't achieve their objectives legislatively or at the ballot box.

Just as an example,(I am just using this issue as an example, not discussing it) California voters not once but twice voted against granting gays the right to marry at the ballot box. So the pro gay marriage folks just did an end run around the voters via the courts. There are many other examples of similar judicial activism, most often by liberal courts.

[Gatefan1976]

Err, you do realise that you have won exactly ONE election via popular vote in the last 8 presidential elections, right? Will of the people my arse.
(If you say "it's the system" again, I swear I will knock your block off, the "system" is a piss-poor attempt at justification, and wait till that gets used against YOU.)
The right is merely better at exploiting loopholes.

Also, expanding government power in the sense you are talking has little to do with the courts and more about how much power the house and senate will give up to the office of POTUS, and I will agree with you that the left has often done THAT far too many times.
The job of POTUS is to be a referee internally, and ambassador externally, for the good of all Americans, same as a Prime Minister, or any other leader.

[Major Zoidberg]

Just as an example,(I am just using this issue as an example, not discussing it) California voters not once but twice voted against granting gays the right to marry at the ballot box. So the pro gay marriage folks just did an end run around the voters via the courts. There are many other examples of similar judicial activism, most often by liberal courts.

My view was that California no more has the right to ban homosexuals from marrying than California does from preventing its citizens from owning AR15's. Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. If heterosexuals can marry then so can homosexuals. The only lawful way to ban homosexuals from marrying is to amend the constitution to strictly prohibit it just as with the ban on alcohol.

[Annoyed]

My view was that California no more has the right to ban homosexuals from marrying than California does from preventing its citizens from owning AR15's. Everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. If heterosexuals can marry then so can homosexuals. The only lawful way to ban homosexuals from marrying is to amend the constitution to strictly prohibit it just as with the ban on alcohol.

I didn't care about that specific issue, could have been should dogs be allowed to cross the street for all I care. My sticking point is that the voters expressed their views not once, but twice at the ballot box, and the courts overrode them.

[AleksisMi]

the potus is a representative of the peoples will, in all forums, he is the epitome of the peoples will, and that is the issue, the society has become so heavily divided its impoosible to perform such a representation of the peoples will since the peoples will is so contradictorily divided

[Annoyed]

the potus is a representative of the peoples will, in all forums, he is the epitome of the peoples will, and that is the issue, the society has become so heavily divided its impoosible to perform such a representation of the peoples will since the peoples will is so contradictorily divided

Unless you want to accept the "winner take all" philosophy. Which we have to do considering the extremely high level of polarization we have today. In such an environment, it's simply not possible for one person, be it a Trump or an Obama to represent everyone's interest.

[mad_gater]

Unless you want to accept the "winner take all" philosophy. Which we have to do considering the extremely high level of polarization we have today. In such an environment, it's simply not possible for one person, be it a Trump or an Obama to represent everyone's interest.

right....it is fundamentally impossible to please everyone....attempts to do so by both parties is what landed us into this messed-up relativistic world we have today where moral reality is whatever you feel like it is in the moment

[aretood2]

ummm. I'm not referring to Nero in 70 A.D. or anyone else of that time era. So... Okay, but you need to keep THE ultimate FINAL Anti-Christ, the one who causes the final desolation just before Jesus returns in context with the other prophecies, which involve a TEN-horned/Ten-crowned beast with Seven Heads. (Governing kingdoms?) -- see Revelation 13:1, which continues with verses 2-8, actually 9 (for hearing and understanding).

The problem is that your "Ultimate Final Anti-Christ" is not biblical. It is not found anywhere in the bible. The bible only mentions two things. Antichrists and The Antichrist. And as I mentioned, the Apostles in the first century state, in no uncertain terms, that The Antichrist was already there. The Antichrist is not a person but a spirit. Hints the term "Spirit of the Antichrist". Consider 2 John 1:7

"For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh This is the deceiver and the antichrist."

Notice that at the beginning it uses plural, the many "deceivers". However, the verse ends by identifying this plural as a singular, "the deceiver and the antichrist". In the context here is warning about false preachers or false teachings.

Again, many Jewish scholars have taught me to look at the whole Chapter context of what Isaiah 34 is about. It refers to a time of nations being judged by God. It also refers to the time when EDOM will become permanently desolate. WHO is Edom? And where is Edom? Is current location of Edom desolate or is there some sort of commerce and population existing within it? Isaiah 34:10 refers to EDOM becoming a wasteland full of burning pitch that will be so totally destroyed that no one (human) will "ever pass thru it again". How long can that be, if the desert owl and thorns will inhabit that area? This also occurs at the same time the "stars of the heavens dissolve" (or vanish). Sounds like a temporary vanishing, not a tremendous shaking as Matthew 24:29-31 describes. And besides, Jesus did NOT return to earth in between 68-72 A.D./C.E., so it sounds like some verses are being read out of order, if they are to be taken in proper context of all of Matthew 24.

...more in next post...

And if you read Isaiah 34 you'll find that it is a prophecy concerning Edom. Interestingly enough by this time the Edomites were either converted or gone. So that means Edom is just a placeholder for a people that challenge God's people. Taken in a New Testament light, that means the church. And if you read Ephesians 6:12 (As well as the whole chapter actually) you see that Apostle Paul states that the church's enemy is not an earthly enemy.

Yes, I am well aware of what the Catholic Church believes (no rapture, no 1000 year millenial kingdom on earth -- that stuff is all symbolic and a *mystery* that no one in the Catholic Church really understands).

That link isn't about the Catholic church, it includes interpretations from dozens of different churches.

Anywho... I disagree. Wisdom is revealed to those it is given - first to the Jew, then to the Gentile (everyone not Jewish). I have been taught to look at the future prophecies in the Bible from many different POV's and theories. Many have fallen short and not come true (yet or at all). However, wisdom insight from several Messianic Jews (Messianic Christians) brought many of those unsolved mysteries to unique lights. Some involve the major Feasts of (ancient) Israel. The rest deals with understanding prophecy as if reading the latest news reels -- info that is so simple to understand, it doesn't take a rocket scientist or spiritual guru to see the amazing parallels popping up right in front of (or within hearing of) their view/ears..!

Tell me, in the writings of the Apostles what is the guiding principle? What is the message about? What are the common threads and themes?

Current events tell me otherwise that some ancient prophecies are about to be fulfilled very soon... which in turn will result in Jesus returning, just as He said he would.

If the following information turns into something prophetically significant, then perhaps within the next decade, we will see or hear amazing Biblical events unfold right before our very eyes (via Tv, news, radio, whatever). Tho these events may be political and historic in nature, they may also be significantly prophetic, as well.

What's the purpose of this?

Due to recent world trade events, President Donald Trump of the USA has pulled out of the G-7, thus making it now the G-6. So, because of that, there are new rumors starting up (again) about whether or not the Ten-toes (kingdoms) revealed in the book of Daniel will form into 10-nations of (speculation) mostly Europe & only God knows who else.

He hasn't done that.

Personally, tho I am looking forward to a united world on earth, I hope the USA is not part of those ten-toes, but not because it was forced out by some horrible event. Let the USA voluntarily remove itself from the 10-toes and remain happily intact. Portions of other prophecies (Revelation 8) have enough bad news in them that might reveal the USA has a different path of a more disastrous nature.

"For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;"-Philippians 3:20

Why do you care about the USA? Where is your ultimate loyalty? The Kingdom of Heaven or this earthly nation of men? Don't get me wrong, on a very worldly level I do care about the US and I wish for all peoples to prosper. But past that, I am merely a pilgrim passing through this world which is not my world (John 17:16). I say this because this is a religious discussion, and you have to choose. American or Christian? It can't be both when discussing God. If you wish to have a purely secular discussion in the politics thread, then I am American. But here, I am no more American than Jesus himself.

That is why I cannot get myself all worked up into a worried frenzy over what happens in our future. Cannot change God's timelines, so let go and seek God's peace of heart and mind in the interim, even tho the proverbial violent storms may end up tossing us to and fro.

Anywho, two articles -- included further below (with bold font mine for developing emphasis) -- reinforce this future connection into the ten-toes of Daniel 2:41-43, which parallels the ten horns with seven heads and ten crowns upon the ten horns of Revelation 13:1. Revelation 13:1-8 reveals the nature of this phenomenal "beast". It will be admired by the *whole world* of those who look upon it and its accomplishments. At the head of the this ten-crowned, ten-horned/seven headed beast will arise the (final and ultimate) "Anti-Christ" who is secular in ruling, but also has a religious sidekick known as the "False Prophet" in Biblical prophecy circles.

According to the prophecy 3 of the 7 crowned horns will not approve in going along with whatever the leader of this pack whips up in regulations/Laws. This is important to remember. Why? At one point in time, some prophecy buff asked if the United Nations separation of the entire earth into ten specific regional kingdoms was the core of this ten-horned, ten-crowned beast. If that is true, then perhaps Russia, China, and hmmm... maybe the USA (or the Americas) will oppose whatever the rest of the ten-nation regions decide to do with their new One-World laws. It's just a possibility I haven't yet ruled out, because it hasn't yet happened! I do suspect that China will come thru One-world time frame as a mighty army *warrior* --as a description mentioned in Revelation 9:16-19 fits their "kings of the east" military colors exactly.



Well, for one thing, it's about time Europe stepped up to the plate to lead... instead of leaving the USA do all their heavy lifting.

So... Bible prophecy Bingo...?
Now enters the possibility of the next phase --
also with an article revealing the potential rise of the world's ultimate "Anti-Christ"... the one described somewhere between Revelation 13:1-18.



Say whatever (generic) you want about French President Emmanuel Macron. But for him to "take the lead" may have some serious significance in forging a new European community in the future OWG. That also bears keeping an eye on. Many "students" following future Biblical prophecies are beginning to believe that Macron just might have a significant part in the future development of a ten-regional / one-world rule. Just his name Emmanuel might end up being claimed as distorted by its (spritiual) symbolism, but significant in the future prophecies of Israel. President Emmanuel Macron has already made comments regarding Jewish Israel's survival. But will future Israel be looking at the wrong "Emmanuel" as their guiding "Savior"...? Interesting twist there, if that does happens.
Maybe... or maybe someone else will step forward into that specific spotlight instead.

THis has nothing to do with our discussion.

[SGalisa]

For the record, my post in its original entirety...

Keeping a Republican majority? That's *wishful thinking*. . .
Especially if Nancy Pelosi, Chucky E. Schumer, Maxine Waters, along with (former NYC mayor) Michael Bloomberg (who may plan on running for the 2020 USA president as Democrat), Michael Moore and a bunch of other high profile lefties get their way--
I think we both know if the Dems ever get back in FULL power, that's the end of it for the Republicans as well as possibly the (entire) USA.

Another pondering in rumorville issue is -- If the USA falls and collapses into complete chaos or destruction, how fast will Georgie Soros buy up the ruined properties so he or his family can rebuild their own empire at (confiscated or) cheaper than discount rates...?

and when quoted...

Keeping a Republican majority? That's *wishful thinking*. . .

It might, though unlike Annoyed, I think it will not be a large majority. If it doesn't it might also not be a large majority on the opposite side.

It all depends on the coming weeks.

I think we both know if the Dems ever get back in FULL power, that's the end of it for the Republicans as well as possibly the (entire) USA.

The end of the Republican party -- nope, not that. The end of a lot of Republican careers, maybe. The end of the US -- not so very much. The end of Trump -- definitely.

FH, I think you morphed me into GF... the link for GF goes to this post, instead--

Hey, didn't the saviour Alex Jones predict a democrat revolution a few days ago??

How-some-ever... (to FH) Thanks for the laugh... it was a nice/welcome *relief* change...
Especially since I've been suffering with chronic back spasm pains for nearly a month now.

[Gatefan1976]

Stop misquoting me or giving false witness to my words.

[Annoyed]

It might, though unlike Annoyed, I think it will not be a large majority. If it doesn't it might also not be a large majority on the opposite side.

The Democrats are setting themselves up for a big fail this fall, with their insistence upon supporting illegal immigrants. Combine that with SCOTUS nominations always being a big drawing card for conservatives, I think they are definitely going to blow their chance of retaking Congress, and they might even lose ground there.

[Gatefan1976]

They are not supporting illegal immigrants, they are supporting humane treatment of people, the right just likes to conflate the two because they have the winner take all Black/White attitude.

[Annoyed]

They are not supporting illegal immigrants, they are supporting humane treatment of people, the right just likes to conflate the two because they have the winner take all Black/White attitude.

It IS black or white. You are either entering the country legally, by the existing process, or you are not.
Black and white. You are or you aren't.

Just as with most situations, shades of gray are really attempts to talk out of both sides of your mouth and occasionally your arse at the same time.

And the Democrats are going to hang themselves on this issue. If they don't suicide on the SCOTUS appointment issue first. The have a number of Senators up for re-election this year in deep red states that Trump won by large margins. The Dem leadership is actually telling those senators to oppose Kavanaugh, knowing full well it will likely cost those senators their seats, killing their chances of taking the senate this year.

[Falcon Horus]

Barefoot & Pregnant. I like it.

According to my sister... "What the hell is that show?!"

Seriously, from its WIKI entry, I don't see what that series has to do with this discussion about the courts.
I don't subscribe to Hulu in any case.

I hear, the reproductive rights of the female half of the US population are coming to an end... so, you know, barefoot and pregnant should be the next step.

It's on TV over here... or it was..

The only lawful way to ban homosexuals from marrying is to amend the constitution to strictly prohibit it just as with the ban on alcohol.

California first explicitly defined marriage as a state between a man and woman in 1977. That year, the California State Legislature passed a law that said that marriage is a "personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman." While no previous California legislation contained explicit language regarding sex or gender, California law prior to 1959 explicitly prohibited marriage between people of different races. Many other states prohibited interracial marriage until 1967, when the United States Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional, in the case Loving v. Virginia.

My sticking point is that the voters expressed their views not once, but twice at the ballot box, and the courts overrode them.

They did indeed -- results of the Prop8 vote were 52% yes, 47% no.

This is a fascinating list by the way:

Donors supporting Proposition 8
Knights of Columbus, $1,400,000.
Howard Ahmanson, $1,150,000.
John Templeton, $900,000.
National Organization for Marriage, $785,750.
Elsa Prince, $650,000.
Fieldstead & Company, $600,000.
American Family Association, $500,000
Focus on the Family, $411,000.
Doug Manchester, $125,000.

One group that opposed Proposition 8 focused attention on the contributions to the pro-Proposition 8 campaign from individuals who belong to the Mormon church. Contributions from Mormons were said to amount to between 33%-40% of the total amount raised in support of Proposition 8.

Donors opposing Proposition 8
Human Rights Campaign, $2,057,981.
Bruce Bastian gave $1,005,000 to HRC.
David Maltz, $1,100,000
California Teachers Association, $1,300,000
No on 8 - Equality California, $1,250,000
Robert Wilson, $1,200,000.
David Bohnett, $600,000.
Tim Gill, (Gill Action Fund), $350,000.
James Hormel, $350,000.
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), $250,000.
Center Advocacy Project Issues PAC, $234,000.
Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Service Center, $225,000.
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force, about $215,200.
GLAAD, $100,000.
Horizons Foundation, $100,000.
Apple, $100,000
Google, $100,000

Unless you want to accept the "winner take all" philosophy. Which we have to do considering the extremely high level of polarization we have today. In such an environment, it's simply not possible for one person, be it a Trump or an Obama to represent everyone's interest.

Funny, I thought it said President of the United States... you know, like all the states and all the people.

FH, I think you morphed me into GF... the link for GF goes to this post, instead--

Oops...

The Democrats are setting themselves up for a big fail this fall, with their insistence upon supporting illegal immigrants. Combine that with SCOTUS nominations always being a big drawing card for conservatives, I think they are definitely going to blow their chance of retaking Congress, and they might even lose ground there.

Maybe...

It IS black or white. You are either entering the country legally, by the existing process, or you are not.

So, why turn asylum seekers away then. They come in through the correct ports.

[aretood2]

It IS black or white. You are either entering the country legally, by the existing process, or you are not.
Black and white. You are or you aren't.

Just as with most situations, shades of gray are really attempts to talk out of both sides of your mouth and occasionally your arse at the same time.

And the Democrats are going to hang themselves on this issue. If they don't suicide on the SCOTUS appointment issue first. The have a number of Senators up for re-election this year in deep red states that Trump won by large margins. The Dem leadership is actually telling those senators to oppose Kavanaugh, knowing full well it will likely cost those senators their seats, killing their chances of taking the senate this year.

If a crime is committed under duress, is that person who committed the crime guilty under the law?