 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Confessions of a Liberal
|
The intelligent liberal black guy won. We voted in as president the big-city lawyer with the foreign-sounding name. Armageddon, or at the very least, socialism, atheism, gun confiscation, the Rapture and a national epidemic of erectile dysfunction must certainly be at hand.
Most of the off-the-tarmac right wing's favorite anti-liberal slanders are rooted in deeply held (and deeply wrong) assumptions about who liberals are and what we believe. Here are ten of them:
- 1. LIBERALS HATE AMERICA.
For the record: liberals love America. Love it. In fact, what makes us so liberal is that we have actually read, questioned, understood and believed those pretty words in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. We want to live in that country. We believe that our nation's founding documents express a uniquely powerful moral contract between a people and their government, and assume an audaciously positive vision of an educated people's ability to run their own affairs and shape their own future. When we get annoying and whiny it's usually because we believe so much in America's astonishing promise that we're disappointed when the country falls short. We know we can do better. And don't tell us to "love it or leave it," because we are committed for the long run to fix it and stay.
Conservatism, by contrast, tends to take a dim view of human nature, prefers enforced hierarchy to personal liberty and isn't completely comfortable with the notion that the American people can or should be trusted. This leads to a selective reading of the Constitution (and of the Bible), and, as we've seen during the Bush Reich, a far more hostile attitude toward personal freedoms. The proof however, is in the history and it's irrefutable. America's greatest moments of progress, generosity, and moral strength occurred when the country stuck most closely to its progressive ideals. Liberals love America so much that we freed the slaves, passed child labor laws, welcomed immigrants, built schools and colleges gave the vote to women, set aside national parks, took care of the elderly, enacted civil rights laws, rebuilt WW II Europe and put a man on the moon. All of these were progressive projects. And all of these were fought against tooth and nail by conservatives simply because they feared change. Conservatives will loudly obstruct social progress until it's forced on them. Then they'll insist they were 100 percent for it all along.
2. LIBERALS WANT TO LEAVE US DEFENSELESS IN THE FACE OF EVILDOERS AROUND THE WORLD.
The big disconnect on security issues begins with the fact that we have a far more expansive definition of "security" than conservatives do, and a broader sense of what the actual threats are and what can be done about them.
When conservatives discuss "security," they're usually thinking in terms of solving all our problems by sending in more guys and gals with guns and bombs. The flip side of this that they tend not to give much credence to real threats that can't be fixed by guys and gals with guns and bombs. As progressives, we know that the country's and the world’s financial crisis is a security issue. And in a world of superbugs and epidemics, universal health care is a security issue. And the energy crisis/global warming is a potential security issue (the Pentagon agrees on this). We also know that Shock and Awe, sending in the Marines, hiring more cops, building space lasers, and taking off our shoes at the airport won't address our most terrifying problems. Real-world security is far more complex and requires a much wider range of solutions than most conservatives are willing to consider. Real-world security requires equality and social justice.
3. LIBERALS HATE THE FREE MARKET.
The operative word here is "free." Liberals believe wholeheartedly in the amazing power of markets to deliver all kinds of important goods. But we've also noticed that some of the deepest human goods of all, a strong family, a caring community, a healthy environment, safe food, clean water and air and time to enjoy them, are assigned no economic value at all in unregulated markets. If we want to protect the value of things that money can't buy, then we need to put some restrictions on markets so they can't encroach into those areas. Besides, any 10-year-old who's played Monopoly (or any adult who's recently been within reach of a TV or newspaper) can tell you how unregulated free markets invariably end up. One person ends up owning the whole game board, and everybody else ends up broke. Game over. That's not an accident; it's just how capitalist systems work. Good regulation can go a long way toward preventing that.
Even conservatives don't really believe in totally free markets. Truly free markets can only work if there's also a free market in labor, which means open borders (it's fun to drop this suggestion with a wink to the border fence line dancers, the Minuet Men) and unfettered collective bargaining, neither of which are exactly pet conservative causes.
4. LIBERALS HATE OUR TROOPS.
Many of us liberals have actually been troops (unlike Bush's Chickenhawk hypocrites). We love our troops. We love them so much that we want them brought home safe and intact to their families as soon as possible. We want them alive because we love them. Tell me: Who was it blocked the new GI Bill because it might encourage troops not to re-up? Who refused to increase VA funding? Who is responsible for the torture chambers of Bagram and Abu Ghraib? Who oversaw the criminal negligence at Walter Reed? Who made combat soldiers buy their own body and vehicle armor? Who irradiated them with Depleted Uranium? Reality check: it wasn't the Liberals.
5. LIBERALS ARE ELITISTS WHO HATE DECENT WORKING CLASS AMERICANS.
...as opposed to those sainted, compassionate corporate men-of-the-people who fly around in private jets and pull down eight-figure salaries courtesy of corporate welfare while closing plants and cutting 12,000 jobs at a time. That must be the "real" populism, you betcha.
Liberals think that sending well-paid American jobs overseas is a crappy idea. We think the domestic minimum wage should be enough to cover the necessities with a little left over. We think it's insane that over half the personal bankruptcies in the USA are due to lack of adequate medical insurance. We think everybody who has the grades should have a shot at college. And we believe that a strong middle-class is absolutely essential for maintaining a healthy democracy because no democracy that has tolerated our current level of inequality has ever survived for long. We believe in paying our fair share of taxes, unlike Joe the Plumber.
You'd be surprised (or not) at how many conservatives making the “Liberal Elitist” accusation have never considered the role government has played in making their own life possible. Their dad or granddad got through college on the GI Bill. They financed their own education with Pell Grants and federally-guaranteed loans. They grew up in FHA or VA-funded houses, going to public schools, and collected fat mortgage interest deductions, which ensured their family's place in the middle class. They went to state universities and they're several thousand dollars richer every month because they're off the hook for Grandma's living expenses, thanks to Social Security and Medicare. They drink cleans water and eat pure foods because of government. They, or their parents, may have started businesses with help from the Small Business Administration, or relied on government advice and subsidies to keep the farm going. They work for businesses that depend on government contracts. But they'll sit there and unthinkingly insist that they made everything they had, hauled themselves up by the bootstraps, all by themselves, with no help from anybody, especially not the government.
6. LIBERALS ARE AGAINST "FAMILY VALUES."
This is one of the biggest disconnects conservatives make. Conservatives and liberals have very different ideas about what families look like, how they function and whose rules they should run under. Liberals are quite willing to recognize the conservative model as a legitimate and valid way to do family, even if we don't always agree with it. But when conservatives look at liberal families and see their patchwork of made-up and adopted arrangements, they see a chaotic free-for-all that doesn't follow any of their strictly mandated rules of family organization, and thus in their minds isn’t a "family" at all. We think the concept is flexible and therefore adaptable to a changing reality. They think it's unstable and scary and maybe dangerous.
So it comes as a considerable shock to conservatives when you point out that progressive areas of the country have significantly stronger families, by almost any measure you can imagine. They have lower rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, infidelity, drug abuse, domestic violence and juvenile delinquency than the more conservative Christian areas do. Massachusetts, the first state to offer gay marriage, also has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Massachusetts likes marriage so much it thinks everybody should have a shot at it. Looking at the statistics, it's possible to conclude that the conservative obsession with "family values" may reflect the fact that families in Red America really are beset by devastating problems that aren't nearly as common in Blue America. Maybe that's why they canonized Sarah Palin's dysfunctional brood. Rather than admit that maybe liberals know something that they don't, they'll usually try to fix the blame for their family chaos on liberals and our crazy anything-goes family arrangements. Liberals believe in family first. Our families are more successful and happy than theirs. This shouldn't be a matter of debate; but it will continue to be one as long they refuse to believe that our families are just as valid and sacred to us as theirs are to them. Maybe more so.
7. LIBERALS WANT TO RAISE YOUR TAXES.
If you are prosperous enough to be bringing in over $250K a year, there's no point in trying to finesse this. Your taxes probably are going up. Between Clinton-era tax cuts, the burst housing bubble and the hot stock market of the past 15 years, these folks probably made so much money that it's time to start giving some back to the nation that made their prosperity possible. (Refer back to #5: they almost certainly didn't make that pile without at least some government help.)
There's just no way to pay for a $600 billion (or $3 trillion, depending) war and a $700 billion (or $1 trillion) bailout. And that's just the current cost, because they're likely to soar in the future without somebody somewhere in this country paying more taxes. The bill for the war alone currently stands $5,000 per American household; the bailout may cost that much again, depending on how much of the money the government can recoup. The GOP went shopping on our credit card and now it's time to pay the bill.
8. LIBERALS ARE GODLESS AND THEREFORE AMORAL.
A lot of progressives are deeply spiritual and our politics are guided by our beliefs. Evangelical churches are finally getting involved with environmentalism, poverty, and human slave trafficking, all issues where liberals have been active for decades. It's great. It's good to have extra hands on board.
It's also true that a lot of progressives aren't dogmatically religious. Unfortunately, many conservatives equate "secular" with "having no moral code whatsoever," since they honestly believe that nobody can possibly behave themselves unless there's some outside authority keeping a hairy eyeball on them. (It's tempting to speculate about what people who believe this might try to get away with when they think nobody's watching; personally, I think it's an incriminating admission that they can't be trusted when God or his human agents aren't watching. Rejecting their God means you refuse to follow their rules which, according to their logic, can only mean that you don't recognize any rules at all. Call this out for what it is. Bullsh!t!
All non-religious progressives have things they hold deeply sacred: family commitments, community obligations, professional responsibilities, the Constitution, social and economic justice, the earth and its systems, the idea of democracy, the rule of law, fairness and the dream of a peaceful future. Those things form the basis of a natural moral code and it's not uncommon to find secular progressives who live more uncompromisingly moral lives than many overtly religious people do.
9. LIBERALS DON'T BELIEVE IN PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Again, there's a definitional disconnect at work here. Conservatives tend to use the rule of law to defend their version of morality and social status, which usually means light treatment for those at the top and harsher penalties for those at the bottom. Liberals tend to use the rule of law to maintain some semblance of fairness and equality, which means that those who have more should be given sanctions proportionate to their wealth and power.
10. LIBERALS ARE WIMPS.
You can believe this only if you don't know anything about the history or reality of American liberalism. The Constitution is itself a radically liberal document, the ultimate expression of Enlightenment principles, drafted by highly educated men who looked radical philosophers and France for inspiration. Some of the boldest Americans in history, Harriet Tubman, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, Teddy Roosevelt, Cesar Chavez, and of course Dr. Martin Luther King, have proudly called themselves "liberal" or "progressive."
Liberalism couldn't have survived and thrived in America if we were half as weak and indecisive as conservatives like to think we are. Our progressive forebears were not timid people. Nor did any of them seem to be bedeviled by a lack of conviction. "Mushy" or "feckless" are about the last words history uses to describe any of them. ("stupid" and "traitor" aren't anywhere on the list, either.) When you sign up to become a liberal, this is the legacy you take on. From then on you attempt to live up to it. It's not God's job to make the world a better place. It's yours. You are the change you've been waiting for. No one may walk the path but you. Liberalism has never been for the faint of heart, mind, or spirit and in this era of conservatism gone wild and completely rotten, it still isn't. Join me. A lot of work needs to be done. We can always use more hands.
[special thanks to Sara Robinson]
Read all of Skeptic's blogs >>
Not registered? Click here
|
Share this
|
Report this
|
Skeptic,
Your post of the differences between liberal and conservatives is certainly biased - liberal is good and fair, conservative is bad and wrong. Come on, you can do better than that-you are much more intelligent than to spew that non-sense. Let alone believe it! Why can't you accept that there are very good people on both sides of the question and then acknowledge that. Yes, there are some on BOTH sides that are obnoxious and therefore irrelevant (don't strive for that) Those few are to be pitied, not derided. These good people that you are intentionally maligning are your neighbors here in Auburn and elsewhere and deserve your respect, not derision. Can't you find some love, acceptance and tolerance in your heart on this day of thanks? Work on it!
Robert Capp
Skeptic: Thanks for the pep talk. It's time to take back the word "liberal" and use it with pride.
More often than not "liberal" is applied to Democrats which is strange because Democrats are actually very centrist in their views. I believe the term "neo-liberal" is much more appropriate. I'm not complaining about your post, Skeptic... I just think the word gets thrown loosely around. I am often referred to as a liberal which seems to indite me as a Democrat, which I am certainly not. Republicans are called "conservative", which they certainly are not. I'm guessing it's probably the same as calling a Libertarian a conservative... he is, but not in the same connotation as is common in the vernacular of our times.
I appreciate the paragraph dedicated to the fact that not not all left wing people are Godless. I certainly am not. It's my faith and a good understanding of the Gospels that have led me to the position I now hold.
bcapp1- You are correct. There are good and bad among all of us. My neighbors are good people, conservatives I think, and we get along just fine. I even know a Democrat who dates a Republican; in fact, some of my best friends... (just kidding) I don't believe I ever said "conservative is bad and wrong." I consider myself a fiscal conservative.
But you're honestly concerned about image, you should know that several ill-educated agents provocateur are using the mantle of honest conservatism to espouse hatred and intolerance.
BirchBricker: I admire your posts very much and hope I haven't insulted you. It was not my intention to demean people of faith. Among my closest friends, I number Christians, Jews, Sikhs, one Muslim and one Hindu. Good people all.
I do, however, have little use for hypocrites who style themselves Christians but use the Bible for an assault weapon. Invariably, I find they have never really read it, have no idea what the symbols mean in theological or historical context, much less ever engaged in scholarly hermeneutics.
Like you, I am sometimes labeled a liberal or progressive, a badge I proudly wear, but which doesn't entirely fit. That's the problem with labels; they're for cans, not people. We're too complex.
BTW, if I'm out of line, it's OK to say so. I will thank you for it. Have a good holiday. Dominus vobiscum.
Skeptic,
Not image, rather actuality. This is real - real people, real situations, real lives. Most people are just that-people, with flaws, warts and all. That is often more about being human, not necessarily hypocritical.
As to "...several ill-educated agents provocateur are using the mantle of honest conservatism to espouse hatred and intolerance." That applies to both conservatives and liberals - please feel free to be balanced.
Robert Capp
Skeptic: Your post is insightful. There are many well-meaning people on all sides. I see that there is just as much hatred, intolerance, and disrespect that comes from some 'voices' across all sides of many issues.
Your call to 'arms' for the liberal cause are all fine and well, but unless I ignore the generalizations, indictments, and the claim of 'liberal' ownership of all that is good, I have trouble getting to the most significant point.
I think most of us share a common goal, which is to leave this place better than we found it. We don't always agree how to do this, but as long as we share that goal, we should be able to work together to make progress.
The point I had hoped to make is stop beating up the liberals. They have accomplished much and we all need to pull together. Thanks for your comments.
Timeslip, very good post.
Skeptic, there is a lot of truth in your blog but like someone else said, labels are for cans, not people. You and I march in step on some issues yet are 180 degrees off on others, that doesn't make either one of us bad people, just different.
Hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving.
Skeptic: I didn't see your post as demeaning to people of faith & you definitely didn't insult me. I enjoyed your post. I too have a problem with the hypocrisy that is often found within the confines of religion. I can imagine Jesus being labeled a liberal by his Pharisee counterparts due to his concern for the poor & marginalized. What does BTW mean?
Et Cum Spiritu Tuo.
Nevermind... I just found out what BTW means. Somehow I missed that.
Skeptic:
I double dog dare you to place a sign on your lawn that states " I am a liberal". Put your money where your mouth is. The criminals would love to see such a sign. They would infer that the occupant is pacifist yussy with no firearms for protections. Talk about easy prey. The solicitors for donations for the needy and poor would be knocking on your door hitting you up for a donation , which I doubt you would give. By the way, I equate liberal with the term "fallacy". I equate conservatism with two words, "critical thinker".
Richthink
Double dog dare?? Did I just step back into a kindergarten class? You can do.better than that. Drop the idealog speak and really ADD something to this post-enough of the hyper partisan talking points. You can't possibly think that way.
Robert Capp
Now if it was a Triple Dog Dare... he'd have to!
bcapp1
The current state of the economy, both state and federal, exemplifies that liberalism is a mental disorder. To a certain extent we all live in a life boat. The ideas that have caused our boat to begin the long sinking process come from liberal thought (even from the GOP). Lets start with free services to trespassers to the U.S. Talk about a waste of my tax payer money. Mexico does not provide such services, except for jail, to trespassers in Mexico. How about Dem's forcing banks to make loans to those who could not afford such with the idea that it is good to get people into homes. We can see where that idea went. How about low income forced on hard working people who have strived thier whole life to live away from undesirables. We can see how that went in Natomas! 19 home invasions by low income residents w/in the same community. Nice. How about San Francisco, thanks to Gavin Newsom, shielding trespassers to the U.S. who have broken the law and flying them, at tax payer expense, out of state. We can see the conclusion of that idea, the death of Tony Bologna and his two sons. The failed idea of sanctuary cities have cost this country dearly. I can go on for hours about failed liberalism. Skeptic can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. I hope I have added enough to the discussion. My comments are facts; not hyper partisan talking points. Lets see you take my points apart Mr. Capp. Lets hear you defend the very policies I have maligned. I suspect you will engage in the good liberal ad hominem attack or you will point to bad things the GOP have done. Those who expose liberalism will rarely retort with a cogent argument. Are you up to the challenge??
Richthink,
I'm not a liberal, progressive or a democrat. I just believe that there is more good in people than what is portrayed here. For me to "take my points apart" what you have posted is pointless. You have done just what skeptic has done, rip on a political party or thought in whole (all liberals are bad, conservatives are good) - read my first post. No one person has a lock on the high ground here. In fact, it seems that the high ground is very unfamiliar territory here in the Auburn Journal posts
Robert Capp
Mr. Capp:
Just as I thought, you did not rise to the challenge. "Pointless" means coward. What I ripped on related to ideas, from liberalism, that have great harm to this country. Lets take away the labels for a moment. Can you present some cogent arguments in support of the policies I claim caused harm?
richthink,
I am a coward? And I'm the one that is NOT afraid to use my own name? You cower behind a pseudonym because.....? This isn't a gottcha game, I do not defend liberalism (progressivism), I do defend the notion that there are good people that are liberals and conservative and that to attach a label that denigrates or derides either is pointless - try the high road (you know, the one less traveled)
Robert Capp
Mr. Capp __ SciFi author Robert Heinlein once wrote, "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig." Sage advice.
I just like to look to some of the liberals like Barbra Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Willy Brown, Jerry Brown, Hillary Clinton, and compare them to people like Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Clarence Thomas. Who would you want to live next door to? The liberals are a detrament to this country. Whats good for them is bad for America and what is bad for them is good for America
Frankly, liberal is a dirty word. I feel dirty saying it. It's so dirty that even liberals hate to use it. They are trying out "progressive" now. See how that fits. Yuck.
All of your Top 10 are basically true despite your protestations.
Robert:
I respect that you do not like labels. Do you or do you not think the "ideas" or "policies" that I take issue with are appropriate "ideas" or "policies"? I know you want to take about something else. You already made your point about what you previously wanted to talk about. I respect your point. Do me a favor, lay off the ad hominem argument related to the use of richthink rather than my real name. As you previously asked me to do, ADD something to this post.
As for you Skeptic:
Again, you betray a deep sense of ignorance with you ad hominem "sage advice". I asked Mr. Capp to rise to the challenge and support some the policies I claim to be dangerous. You, like Mr. Capp, are good at avoiding the task at hand. Lets here some arguments.
Valkyrie,
None of the above - they all have too much celeb status and therefore things would not be peaceful in the neighborhood. How about regular folks like those posting here? Who knows, since most use a pseudonym, you may already live near one.
Robert Capp
This started out as such a civil thread until of course richthink had to step in & blow farts into the conversation.
Steelybob:
Once again your true ad hominem colors rise to the surface.
richthink - Very amusing. Using an ad hominem to accuse someone else of an ad hominem.
Mr. Capp's response might include pointing out that assertions made without proof can be dismissed without proof.
There are many simple truths, but it is rare to find an original idea. Perceptions and perspectives are abundant. I wonder if some of you been educated beyond your intelligence?
Simple truths:
1. Good people do not hate the freedoms they enjoy
2. Good people defend freedom when required
3. Good people want a fair market so they can thrive
4. Good people appreciate those who serve and protect
5. Good people do not think more highly of themselves once they get alittle education
6. Good people take care of their families
7. Good people want a fair tax system, and never cheat
8. Good people have a strong sense of their morals, and defend them
9. Good people take responsibility
10. Good people take appropriate action when required
So what if you agreed, but followed only 9 out of 10. Would be then be judged as good, bad, or something in between, perhaps 'mostly' good. For example, you cheated on your taxes. Or you failed to take responsibility.
Even worse, what if you thought your action was appropriate, but someone else took exception. This is where the lines are no so clear, and where some bad assumptions are made about people.
I assume most, if not all, are at least mostly good. No matter what their religion, politics, or other such labels they might wear.
Here is a twist to think about and I wonder how many believe it? Could it be true?
The First Witness has left a new comment on the post "Is Barack Obama "Mabus," predicted by Nostradamus ...":
If you look at the Nostradamus prophecy about the Tree of Life and "ONE MALE", then unmistakably, it is indicating that Barack Obama is the Antichrist. It is so positivity shocking and eerie in fact as to seemingly without any question to have predicted Obama would come in this exact time and place and he would be the Antichrist. He gave 12 distinct prophecies of this happening.
The prophecy is basically as follows (in parenthesis I will give the interpretations):
1. From the sky would come The Great King of Terror in 1999
(OBVIOUSLY this is a direct reference to USA President George W. Bush - "The Terror King" and his coming onto the world scene in 1999)
2. Great pillars of world power would be seen burning to their destruction
(of course this is the World Trade Center collapse on 9/11/01)
3. The Great King of Terror would go forth from the west towards the east as a white conqueror and war victor
(not only is this a direct reference to Bush "The Great King of Terror" but it is also a CLEAR reference to the Book of Revelation's first horseman of the apocalypse, the white horseman, also being Bush)
4. There shall be a war between the "Crescent Moon" and "the fish" spring up and derision and strife in the Terror King's own land as a result of the tyrannical actions of the dreaded King of Terror
(by the fact that the US itself was behind the events of 9/11/01 and then began illegal wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, while no less bombing other countries like Syria at the same time - thus we have an Islamic-Christian war and a divided USA)
5. There would be a conflict in the regions of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea that would further spread the war that first began in the region of Afghanistan.
(The Georgian and Serbian conflicts completed this prophecy being fulfilled)
6. There would come some sort of unimaginable horror of destruction to the environment, animals, and people, and with 100 hands unleashing a horrible vengeance the world has never known before.
(This is easy to see as a clear reference to the US Senate - it is obviously telling us about the second false flag attack operation by the US, wherein a nuclear attack done by the US itself hits an American city - then of course comes an insanely bloodthirsty response from the 100 members of the US Senate against the innocent country that they knowingly falsely blame for the attack, using the same exact methods that were used to make the US population believe that 9/11/01 was done by "terrorists")
7. This war would then bleed into conflicts with Persia and would also cause a further escalation of the events in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
(All anyone has to do is turn on the news for the likely scapegoats of #6 - Iran and Pakistan)
8. The above two prophecies would then cause "The Great Northern Bear" to get involved in a northern hemisphere dispute with the "Great Northern King"
(This clearly indicates that Russia would then retaliate against the US and thus begins World War III - it again also gives a direct Biblical reference as Daniel described the Biblical Antichrist as being "The King of The North")
9. At the time of this war this land of the "Great Northern King" would have a new leader ruling over it and he would become king by stating to the people that he was a "bringer of peace". He is then described by the fact that on the tree of genealogy he would be of African descent on one side and European on the other side and believe it or not, would come on one side from the side of the tree that descended from Abraham into Muslims instead of the line that descended into Christians and the other side into the line that descended into modern-day Jews instead of Christians.
(This again being a direct Biblical reference as in The Bible The Antichrist is said to be a descendant of Jewish blood, who is Antichrist in nature - meaning of a religion opposing Christianity, and is of a line of European ancestry. Meaning that Nostradamus' "Great Northern King" would fit ALL of these criteria. And of course in the Bible it is said that Antichrist is also called "the prince of peace" and he will bring a 7 year peace treaty)
10. Then we are given a set of final clues to properly identify this individual.
First, he is described as being a male and he is an English speaker and is the leader of the English speaking world. Second, he is described as being a Muslim. Third, he is described as being able to genetically prove both European and Jewish bloodlines, which then causes him to be accepted by the Jews as the Messiah.
(Here Nostradamus shows the Northern King is from the USA and again makes a direct Biblical reference to Antichrist as the Jewish Messiah is described as being the Biblical Antichrist in the books of Daniel and Isaiah)
11. Under this Northern King comes a horrible destruction of the world during this war with "The Great Northern Bear" and then also finally "The Great Red Serpent". At least 2/3's of the world's population is destroyed. We are then given a time frame for when this occurs. The EXACT date is given as December 21st 2012, and is said to occur after the "Northern King" tricks his people into first believing he was a man of peace.
(This clearly tells of a global thermonuclear war between the US and Russia and then amazingly does Nostradamus give a prophecy that matches The Book of Revelation where "The Kings of The East" send a 200 million man army to battle The Antichrist - this of course being China and its army attacking against the USA military. Of course even more amazing about this prophecy is that in Revelation The Battle of Armageddon occurs when the 200 million man army goes against The Antichrist and it is said 2/3's of the world dies.
Now in The Bible The Antichrist declares peace and then after 3.5 years he unleashes his horrors of war, meaning AGAIN Nostradamus makes a biblical reference. Now think of this......Obama will be President at this EXACT time)
12. Finally, as it was in the days of Noah when the flood destroyed the world so to shall the world again be destroyed on this day of 12-21-12 and that after only a very small number of people would survive
(Here we have another biblical reference and as it was said in The Bible also that in the end times God will punish the world as he did in Noah's time for the evil that had been done by man and the date he gives is 12/21/12 which is the final date on the Mayan calendar/Novelty graph and the date the Earth is at the center of the Milky way.)
Now, it is undeniable that Nostradamus prophesied that Barack Hussein Obama is The Antichrist.
Post a comment.
Obewan,
Lots of stuff there - though it doesn't seem to relate to the original blog. Can you please sum up your point in one paragraph please, I'm very interested in what you have to say as it relates to the original blog.
Thanks,
Robert Capp
Robert,
I thought Skeptic hit the nail right on the head and wrote an insightful and powerful blog that clearly defines our cultural struggle. The pendulum always swings left and then right almost like clockwork as the world turns time...freedom has many faces and many ideas of how time should unfold in the future. As I have posted before the party separations we enjoy in these blogs are for those wanting to have more control over our lives and our human resource...we are the commodity.... to be sold and branded just like a product seen in the commercial.. that attempts to bend and influence our minds.
Peace and tranquility should be all of our goals in a new age of enlightenment....a competitive struggle that goes on forever.... is not something I would wish on a new world wanting to end hundreds of years of lies and false control mechanisms. Americans have been asleep for way to long and may soon have the ability to change the world as we know it...and actually make it a better place. See the World is actually here and we somehow all get along and now all we have to do is go out and teach the rest of the world how to do it.....teach the world...not beat the world out of their resources...embrace the world for the wonder and the varied human resource it offers all of us. We need not take... we only need to teach others how to share... through example....as we share with them.
Sadly all religion practice needs to end...for it is these false belief systems that hold back the true collective power of the human spirit and still keeps us divided. The days of brainwashing from any entity and the media controlled subliminal messaging triggers...need to go away and if not they need to send a new message that begins to express a new understanding of cooperation, peace and freedom for all in a world consumed by a false anger created to control them.
So the Antichrist ...is something I ran across...and we should heed what is written. Often the student only performs based on what the teacher has taught or written...messages are power.
Obewan,
Thanks for the clarification.
Robert Capp
Are you serious... Nostradamus??? Wow. How about using Leprechauns, Unicorns, the Mojo Man, Palm Reading, or the squeezing a goats testicles?
Hey obiewan: An anti-christ is someone who doesn't believe that Jesus is the "Cristos", Greek for "Christ". "Christos" is the Greek word for "Messiah". Messiah means "Anointed One". Actually it means "The Anointed One of the House of David". If you don't believe that Jesus is the Anointed One of the House of David... you are an anti-christ. There is no THE anti-christ. Stop idol worshipping Tim Lahaye & turn A&E off! By the way, for someone that's so fascinated with anti-christs: divination, clairvoyance & fortune telling are a violation of the third commandment.
What I find distrubing is the desire to suppress religion. Seems like this runs counter to the consitution, but I am sure the various movements and organizations will attempt to suppress it anyway. Good luck with that.
Who is Tim Lahaye? I can only pass on what I have seen written...it for those that understand the power of the written word.
skeptic,
Keeping it real by citing Sara Robinson? Nice work! Way to go........and all that.
skeptic, Oh, other than the first paragraph and the last few lines, that's all I read of your post. I was truly glad to see you cite your source this time.
I appreciate you working to rehabilitate your credibility, I really do. ;-)
Obewan,
Tim LaHaye is a co-author of novels primarily dealing with the end times. Three of those have been made into motion pictures. Look him up on Amazon or Google him.
Robert Capp
Robert,
Thanks...I will look him up. I do not believe that the end times are near but instead that some kind of world awakening is around the corner and in the near future. Weather this awakening is from our doing via nuclear weapons, Cern or something other event from outside the solar system...is yet to be seen or realized.
The power of the what has been written and predicted by many is still just that....a prediction. My worry is how we might through our sub conscience actions and behaviors.... make it come about as a collective unknowingly.... their influence can not be denied.
Whether, obewan, it's "whether". "Wheather" is what happens outside. What is Cern? (this should be good!).
OMG! I mean "Weather". "Weather" is what happens outside. Nothing worse than correcting someones mistakes with more mistakes. Jeez.
Cern is a very large particle collider in Europe. They are looking for the God particle. They may uncover some interesting things, but if history is the guide, they will also discover yet more questions. Maybe they will find the Gay particle instead....
timeslip - Wasn't CERN the authority that helped create the web? I've heard quantum physicists talk about many particles; quarks, gluons, hadrons, leptons, mu-mesons and lots of others I can't remember, but I've never heard of a "God" particle. What is it?
tslip - I just found this at the CERN website (http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/Welcome.html):
"CERN is the European Organization for Nuclear Research. The name is derived from the acronym for the French Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, or European Council for Nuclear Research... Its business is fundamental physics, finding out what the Universe is made of and how it works...In 2008, the Large Hadron Collider will embark on a new era of discovery at the high-energy frontier. LHC experiments will address questions such as what gives matter its mass, what the invisible 96% of the Universe is made of, why nature prefers matter to antimatter and how matter evolved from the first instants of the Universe’s existence."
Cool!
Guys...you should look a little deeper at this Cern project...the potential of the creation of black holes may exist....and if you study a little more of the down side you may find the Kids are playing around with creating potential time warp anomalies......gee I believe Nostradamus was in France when he had his visions. Opening a few time portals might be pretty cool. The first test shut down the collider and it was because of a bad magnet....yea that was it...I believe them... don't you? These are probably the same people that thought it was OK to denote nuclear weapons in the upper atmosphere creating some new Van Allen belts. Should be 100% up and running by 12.21.2012.