Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Obama Was for Gay Marriage Before He was Against It

I've argued a couple of times that Barack Obama will capitulate in due time to the hard-left's demands for gay marriage rights. Obama's official "Change" website features the most comprehensive homosexual rights platform of any incoming presidential administration, and while Obama has argued against same-sex marriage while campaigning, by ideology and inclination he's favorably disposed to the gay marriage agenda.

It's no surprise, then, that the news this morning features a number of stories highlighting Obama's past endorsement of full-blown homosexual marriage rights:

Obama Gay Marriage

In 1996, during his run for Illinois state Senate, Obama offered a progressive gay rights agenda, which is outlined in the memo above in a response to queries from the now-defunct newspaper, Outlines. The Windy City Times, the paper's successor, has the full story, "Obama Changed Views on Gay Marriage" (see also Ben Smith's report).

The Windy City Times claims that it searched its hard-copy archives for the "missing" questionnaires of the Chicago-area candidate positions for that year's elections. In the case of Obama, with the documents just now coming to light, this could be one of the most momentous bait-and-switch operations in American history.

I argued earlier that at some point, given Obama's language of tolerance and his inherent style of finessing the issues, we'd see a push for gay marriage under a new Democratic administration, starting with the repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, the federal law the relieves states of official recognition of the gay marriages of citizens of another state.
As I argued:

The DOMA says that the federal government will not recogize same-sex marriages as coequal to traditional marriages, and it holds that states need not recognize same-sex marriages that have been lawfully authorized by legislatures of other states.

Should the Obama administration repeal DOMA, the gay marriage movement will become legitimized under a creeping federalism of No on H8 intolerance, as more and more states recognize same-sex weddings across the nation - that is, an Obama administration will give the green light to the destruction of this country's traditionalism by legitimizing claims to homosexual marriage equality.

This would be a huge step toward consolidating a national religion of secular humanism at the federal level of American government and politics. Indeed, this is exactly the outcome demanded by radical same-sex activists. We will see a new national polity built on an ideology of cultural relativism, no longer that great shining City on a Hill, but just one more run-of-the-mill postmaterialist industrial state with an anything-goes program of amoralism nationalism.

Here again, are the stake before us ...
It's only a matter of time before we see Barack Obama shift his position back to favoring the gay marriage agenda. Whether this begins with DOMA or with legal challenges to gay marriage bans in the states, my sense is that Obama's early statements on homosexual rights reflect his core beliefs, and he'll use his office to advance that agenda as a matter of personal principle. Strategically, he might delay this step until after reelection in 2012, but a first-term repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" could set the tone at the federal level for a major public relations campaign by the Obama administration in the years ahead.


Gayle said...

Excellent post, Donald, and it will all begin on the day Obama is inaugurated! To appease the gay rights activists over the fact that Rick Warren was chosen for the inauguration (remember Rick Warren backed the ban on same-sex marriage in CA), Robinson will molify the homosexuals by giving a speech and he will not refer to the bible! Although you've probably already heard about this, the article is here.

I'm just amazed at what's happening to our beloved country. Amazed and depressed. It's almost beyond belief but it really is happening and it stinks!

Anonymous said...

Grace: You are amazed because Obama is reaching out to both sides. I totally understand the Warren thing, despite my views on the man. It makes sense. It gets the crazy Xtian wing to listen up and take notice.

I've never seen a president-elect knocked down so far before he takes office. It's an Obama derangement.

And, for the record, all you lot who said we on the left suffer from "Bush Derangement" suffer from a similar disease.

Now, own up to it and admit you are being at least somewhat hypocritical. This is our President that you are knocking down.

You are either with us, or against us. Right?

Can we start to label you righties a bunch of America hating nihilists because you hate the president, who was elected by an overwhelming majority of the AMERICAN people who showed their POWER in great numbers?

But Grace, I'm guessing you are without sin, because you are the first to pick up a stone and throw it.

Again, Jesus is smiling at those who miss the whole point of his message, at the idea of reaching out to those you don't like or disagree with.

AmPowerBlog said...

It is kind of depressing, Gayle, but I'm trying to have some faith that Obama will respect the silent majority which favors tradition over secular nihilism.

AmPowerBlog said...

Tim: That's Gayle, not Grace.

You're shooting from the hip even before you know to whom you're responding.

Anonymous said...

Interesting...did you see how Obama was welcomed at the soon-to-be world leader?

Iranians burned pictures of him, ran over them with cars and stomped them. So much for that ushering in a new era in human history, eh?

Maybe Americans will finally get back to work and drop this celebrity savior nonsense and realize our enemies hate us because of who we are, what we stand for, and has nothing to do with whom we elect.

Lastly, I wonder if there are some in our country who will finally see these actions as disrespectful and threatening instead of heroic and funny.

This may just make liberals patriotic.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Donald, my bad. Before the coffee.

But the sentiment from your side is usually the same and interchangeable.

Jason: Yes, we know Iran is a rogue regime and we don't like them. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't engage them on some level. If that means taking out their nukes, so be it. Who knows?

What we cannot do is afford another large scale war. We don't have the resources. Soldiers and equipment are not manna from heaven.

Liberals are realists.

AmPowerBlog said...

"Maybe Americans will finally get back to work and drop this celebrity savior nonsense and realize our enemies hate us because of who we are, what we stand for, and has nothing to do with whom we elect."

We have domestic enemies, Jasaon, who hate us for who we are as well. They just hide it under "progressive" ideology.

AmPowerBlog said...

Tim: If you took the time to actually read some of the other commenters' blogs you might find that these are just regular old Americans who just can't believe what has happened to our nation and culture. Gayle is one of those, and she's a bit more restrained than our blessed Grace.

Anonymous said...

"Liberals are realists."

No Tim, they are intellectually bankrupt and basically children.

Greywolfe said...

Wow. First off, very good post. Second, I could have a heart attack and die from NOT surprise. I've believed since day one that this guy is not a real person, he's just a reasonable facsimily, thereof.

Also, I'm never amazed when the liberal left media decides to put a thumb in our eyes with "found" items that point out just how much of a good thing they got, while pointing out how screwed we conservatives truly are.

And lastly, even though I hate even giving Tim any justification to type another word, he's got my head ready to explode.

Tim, you really need to read some history, man. And I don't mean the utter horse scat that the pubic (not a typo) education system force feeds our children. The path that this nation is on has been tread by every great society in history. A very dear friend that came out the positive side of Alcoholics Anonymous said that one of the ways in which you can define insanity is to do a thing over and over and expect different results.

Every thing this man stands for has been done before both here and abroad, both past and present, and has resulted in net negative results. With the exception of the fact that he's looking to have 1 trillion (with a "t") plus dollar deficits EACH YEAR. That's 4 times the TOTAL deficits for ALL of Bush's 2 terms. Just exactly how long do you expect the nation to hold up to that? The Chinese already are balking at buying any more of our debt.

And don't you DARE invoke the name of Christ and support a man who condones the murder of children who survives a late term abortion. Or who supports late term or any other type of infanticide. You hypocritical ass. You support a man who would turn biblical law on its head by aproving for homosexuals what God set aside for man and woman? The Bible calls your ilk false teachers. A special place in hell is set aside for those who would distort the teachings of Christ and Abraham. We can love a "person" and detest his actions. If Barry were in danger of dying, I'd try to stop it, but I'd still be at the front of the protesters trying to get him thrown out of MY oval office.

He is a liar and a conman. He is a construct of the Chicago Machine and has as much right to be president as Carl Marx.

You keep drinking the coolaid. Sooner or later, you're gonna wake up to a nation that has shed it's civilized skin and you'll sit there and bemoan the state that you and yours have brought this nation to. I hope that at that moment, you wake up and see the damage you've done. At least then, with the wolves at the gate, you'll die with enlightment and perhaps a repentant heart.

Until then... Whatever.

AmPowerBlog said...

Thanks for visiting, Greywolfe.

repsac3 said...

While there's little doubt you feel different about it, I hope you are correct about Obama & the democrats rolling back the restrictions on gay rights... It'd be a good thing to allow gay people to unite with those they love and receive the same benefits for doing so as straight couples do when they unite.

The idea that any couple can be legally united in one state, and have those rights & benefits stripped away if they move to another state, is morally (& as far as I'm concerned, constitutionally) wrong and discriminatory, and always was. Different states have different laws for who can legally unite, but a 16 year old couple who unites in a state where they could legally do so stays united if they then move to a state where they could not've legally had the ceremony. I know of no other circumstance where a legal union in one US state is not recognized throughout our union. (The only other incidence of that kinda thing I could find was in the anti-misogynation laws of old... No surprise there... Discrimination doesn't change, much.)

So, while I understand that you think it'll end US civilization as we know it, or whatever, I have no such fears, and thus I really hope you're right, Don... I really do...

Anonymous said...

Greywolfe: Thanks for your comments. Your derangement only solidifies my own opinions.

You have a very short memory. Remember: "Deficits don't matter"?

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was told "deficits don't matter" when he warned of a looming fiscal crisis. O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired...

And this endless claim that all of Europe is screwed up is interesting talk as well. We are all in a similar boat right now, sad to say. To me, Enron was the tip of the current iceberg here in the US. Remember, this is the company run by a bunch of Bush friends who perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in American history. At the time. That was merely a forerunner.

Your "system," Greywolfe, is bankrupt. As are "conservative" values. They've run the world into the ground. But hey, thanks!

And in case you didn't realize, I don't have a monotheistic worldview. So your comments there are irrelevant to me. We don't live under biblical law, and Obama is not a baby murderer. You listen to Michael Savage much?

Greywolfe said...

Tim, you obviously haven't read any post I've written or you wouldn't try to tie me in with Bush. The only thing I agreed with him on was taking out the trash in Baghdad and Afghanistan. For the rest, he was a miserable failure to many in the social and economic conservative circles.

In response to your other blather, your lack of faith doesn't surprise me, yes he is a baby killer in that he has a very clear voting record for supporting the murder of children. And finally. True conservative values, are not responsible for the mess the world is in. It's the abandonment of those values that has caused the current state of affairs. Again, get an education. I suggest stopping by my blog and some of the other well reasoned blogs that you will find posted there. Then, I'd suggest picking up a bible instead of talking out of your butt when talking to christ Jesus' message.

However, I don't expect you to do either, as it's pretty obvious that you are happy with your mindset. And have elected to close your mind to anything that doesn't serve your self-centered support for whoever is in power that will give more to you or your "Cause Du Jeur".

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

I would have thought all you right wingers would be happy Obama's picture was burned in Iran. Nothing pleases you people.

Anonymous said...

Greywolfe: I will stop by your blog, no problem. For the record, I do pick up a bible on occasion, and I even have the Bible app on my iPhone for quick reference. I read it often. I also read Lord of the Rings. Fantasy novels are one of my favorite genres. I went to Catholic school for five years, and my children also go to Catholic and Episcopalian schools. The only difference here is that I do not subscribe to a Judeo-Christian worldview that puts a god at the head of the table. To me, no religion is correct in that sense. If there is some sort of supreme being, it is very clear to me that he exists in spite of 2-4,000 year old books written by desert people. I do, whoever, subscribe to most Judeo-Christian values that put big emphasis on a strong family environment. If you ask me, the "downfall" that those on the right talk so righteously about can be tied in to a shift in family values that began in the 70s.

Now, if that is the case, this means that both sides share the burden here. Statistics bear this out. It isn't just a liberal/conservative thing. As I've stated here before, pretty much all of my conservative older generation relatives have had multiple marriages. Now, in spite of that, our families are remarkably close. I consider Donald a member of my extended family and even though we disagree politically, I hold nothing against him there. These are opinions, some based on feeling, some based on fact. We see the world differently, that's all. I respect the opinions here, even when people call me a scumbag, a loser and a nihilist. Those are like a badge of honor to me...

But for the record, I consider Obama no more of a baby killer than W. is an Iraqi or U.S. soldier killer.

AmPowerBlog said...

"I consider Obama no more of a baby killer than W. is an Iraqi or U.S. soldier killer."

And that is where we part ways, Tim. And nihilist is a description of your mindset, and folks like both you and Repsac3, not an epithet.

Anonymous said...

Donald: I don't believe life is meaningless. Quite the contrary. And that goes especially for those who are actually here and living their lives.

Like the majority of Americans, I treat abortion as a personal and private matter, between a woman and her partner. Just not for me to get involved. That's all. I respect and value all life. I think it's a cheap shot to level that accusation, as it is an epithet.

repsac3 said...

You can repeat it until the whole country turns blue, Donald...

Nihilist isn't defined as "disagrees with Professor Douglas" in any dictionary except the one you've written in your mind...

Perhaps one day you'll try to quote the actual words of one of your "nihilist-bomb" targets, and show how they fit a real dictionary definition of nihilist... I've probably asked a good 20-30 times so far, even going so far as to repeat the quotes you claimed were "nihilist" in nature, and asking you to put them to the dictionary test, but you never have accepted the challenge a single time... Until you do--if ever you do--all your chatter about nihilism is just empty wordplay...

While you use it as an epithet, your failure to back it with anything meaningful or concrete renders it as ephemeral as a tiny puff of smoke released into a strong breeze...

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

You're getting pretty stale Professor. Challenge your imagination to come up with a new enemy that will get your disciples all excited and full of vitriol. Even your most avid pro Israel fan and your most anti gay fan has to be ready for a man of your education to come up with something new. In the meantime, I'll keep watch over the midwest for any gay, secular humanist anti Zionist America haters we can throw stuff at.

AmPowerBlog said...

"I don't believe life is meaningless..."

My use of "nihilism," Tim, to describe folks like yourself and Repsac 3 is broader, to describe not nothingness but a rejection of the current order and universal good.

Check "Free":

"Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief."


"The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement."

Whether you include "nothingness" in that is your deal ...

AmPowerBlog said...

Repsac3: I cited definitions of "nihilist" in debate with Biobrain, so your protest is old news. I have a definition up there above, in response to Tim, and you're included.

You have abandoned the moral good, have you not? You reject religious conservatism because it does not respect a right to gay marriage, no?

AmPowerBlog said...

Truth101: The better my post, the more pissed off you get.

repsac3 said...

I cited definitions of "nihilist" in debate with Biobrain, so your protest is old news

(Reference, in case anyone cares: And Doctor Biobrain's Response Is...: Conservative Nutjobs: Why They're Totally Right About Everything) ((Yes, that's right... Donald is referring to something that happened last June, on another blog.))

Yes you did, but from that day to this, you've never taken the second step & shown where anything I or any other commenter has said, either here, there, or anywhere else, fits the definition you occasionally post. And permit me to point out, you didn't this time, either...

You have abandoned the moral good, have you not?

No, not at all... For instance, I believe that living up to the words our founding documents say as regards inalienable rights is a moral good. I would think you would, as well...

But rather than asking me, why not give an example of my doing any such thing, as you seem to be alleging I have abandoned the moral good?

You reject religious conservatism because it does not respect a right to gay marriage, no?

Hmmm... A tougher one...

I suppose I do reject religious conservatism, but that by no means is to say I reject religion, or anyone's right to worship their God as they see fit... not even if their faith is more conservative than mine.

I'd defend any church's right not to go against the tenets of their faith as concerns gay marriage or anything else, but I also don't believe that any church has the right to require that those Americans who are not of their faith live by their sacred laws. Churches should never be required by law to marry gay folks, but the state should not be bound by church doctrine, either.

I'm not opposed to your following the doctrines of your faith, but I am opposed to your requiring me or anyone else to follow them, rather than the doctrines of our own.

If you believe that this makes me a nihilist, I invite you to explain how...

The definition link, for reference: Nihilist - definition of Nihilist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

"Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief."

No... I've not seen anything that Tim or I has said that fits that definition...

"The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement."

Nope, not that one, either...

YOU claim that offering the same rights to gay couples that we do straight couples will destroy the social institution of marriage, but I don't believe it will. (In fact, I believe it will uphold the ideals set forth in the US Declaration & Constitution, and that, rather than destroying anything, it will bring our society closer to meeting those ideals (just as it did when fundamental rights were offered to other groups who were once unrecognized or discriminated against by our political & social institutions.)

That said, I'll give you another chance... Where have I ever said I believe any political or social institution needs to be destroyed?

AmPowerBlog said...

"YOU claim that offering the same rights to gay couples that we do straight couples will destroy the social institution of marriage, but I don't believe it will."

Of course, not. Nihilists reject not just tradition, but reality itself, Repsac3.

So, yes, the description fits you perfectly. It's no surprise why you resist the description of your endless anti-American, anti-religious morals, anti-tradition, anti-everything relativist licentiousness as nihilist.

You are nihilist. It's a description of your radical program, not an epithet. You're right in league with folks like International ANSWER, IMHO.

Recall Snooper's post:

"The Marxists of this world would love nothing better than to slaughter the Eagle. And, to those that created the environment that enabled a Marxist to get "elected" - via voter and campaign fraud unchallenged - I have many things to say but primarily, may you rot in hell and I hope I have the pleasure of sending you to your final destination. There is no forgiving you...not in my lifetime."

You and your Swashzone allies were the first folks to come to mind.

You should be ashamed of yourself

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

"Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief."

"The belief that destruction of existing political or social institutions is necessary for future improvement."

With your accepted definition Professor, you are a nihlist. You only accept your concept of religion and morality. The Constitution guarentees the government will not establish any religion. Then you want to deny two Americans that love each othe rthe right to marry.

Call me a secular humanist nihlist if you want Don, but if two people are happy together I'm happy for them.

AmPowerBlog said...

Truth101: I didn't mention you along with Tim and Repsac3, but you're nihilist as well.

P.S. This is not a question of separation of church and state. Religion has always played a role in American politics without coming anyway near establishing an official church.

Religion is and always has been the foundation for moral universalilsm. Nihilists reject that, hence my use of the term.

Anonymous said...

Donald: What traditions do I or others not respect? Marriage is a broad issue covering civil laws and religious ceremony. Being progressive means you welcome more people into your "tradition," not close them off. But if, by definition, a tradition is immutable, then when can a tradition be established? We've had this argument before, and the tradition of marriage has had many permutations by history and culture.

But to the original point, if we are nihilists, you most certainly subscribe to a form of bigotry. bigot: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Yup, certainly describes our doctor!

Remember Donald, female genital mutilation is a sacred tradition in some cultures. I will leave you with that image for now. If you reject that tradition, are you a nihilist in that culture?

You took a shot, but you didn't score.

AmPowerBlog said...

That's the thing, Tim: I don't sink to comparing our culture as equal to "others." Some cultures, like Islamist totalitarianism, terrorizes it's own adherents.

In any case, nihilist is not an epithet, and I've never used it as such. Your beliefs are truly radical. You have no faith in an external being and you advocated revolutionary socialism in the comments of this blog.

I reject that, and I reject your ideological foundations. Simple as that.

repsac3 said...

Still no quotes that fit the definition you posted...

(Instead, another redefinition, involving "reality, itself" which you also fail to back with anything concrete...)

Another nihilist puff of nothin', blowing away on the breeze...

You keep talkin' & I'll keep askin' you to back your words with somethin' more than this endless, nihilist, nonsensical nothingness...

Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...

Last time I checked, 2% wasn't an "overwhelming majority". I'm responding appropriately to the most evil human leader the world will ever know: the 666 beast. That's what BHO is, imo.

Tim, I'm not amazed that Obama plays both sides (in more ways than one).

JoeBama "Truth 101" Kelly said...

From Professor Douglas:

"Truth101: I didn't mention you along with Tim and Repsac3, but you're nihilist as well."

Thanks Professor. I am now part of the clique. And you sir, are a proud member of the Society of Deluded Right Wing Fools.

Solidarity Brother!

Greywolfe said... bigot: "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

Based on that definition... Yep, I'm a bigot. I'll stand and defend this country against the adherants of Marx and Muhammed. I have no problem with the idea that any muslim that wants to keep as women uneducated chattle and bring everyone to Islam by word or sword should be made extinct.

I also reject any belief that says that two men that like to bugger each other, thereby breaking not only God's law, but natural law, should be allowed to raise children or be married. California has domestic partnership laws. Fine with me. Let them try for domestic partnerships. But our founders had sodomy as a capitol crime for a reason. Those are the beliefs and traditions that made us a great nation. The departure from those traditions are what has us in the state of moral, social, and economic decline that we are currently experiencing.

So you libs can go to D.C. and watch "The One" be inaugerated and fiddle while Rome burns. The rest of us will be digging in and waiting for the opportunity to say, "Told ya so." If you survive what comes.

AmPowerBlog said...

Repsac3: You're of course blinded to your own circumstance, where you can't see right from wrong in your own relativistic world.

I see you as out to destroy traditionalism and the moral good of our society, and hence nihilist. You reject the label, and that's fine, but you have not lifted the stain off of your shoulders.

In any case, we've been around these debates time and time again, here, at Biobrain's ... it does not matter. You return to my blog even after (O)CT(O)PUS has warned you away. That alone tells me the power of my posts have pummeled you, and perhaps you'll come around and escape the dark side.

In the meanwhile, Merriam's definition is here, and it fits you even better than those above: "a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths."

repsac3 said...

And still, still, STILL no quotes of mine to back up your beliefs...

You can see whatever you like, and believe whatever you do, but without supporting evidence, the things you claim to see & believe don't amount to much to anyone aside you...

Don't tell us, show us... ...or admit you cannot.

Anonymous said...

Greywolfe: I do agree with you about Islamofascism and the extinction thereof. You will get no debate from me there. If the Taliban disappeared from the Earth tomorrow, so much the better. And if we have to destroy them, so be it. I don't think that makes anyone a bigot. They only want us dead, so...

Also, I read on your blog that you are a big Sword of Truth fan. So am I and am just about to start the fourth book, Temple of the Winds. I think you and I part company, though, on the rapture fiction!

Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...


You asked about my view of secession on a different thread. I'll post my response here so maybe you see it.

Secession will actually result by economic necessity, imo. That's going to be the bottom-line. Yet, it will be the Lord. First, imo, there will be a Great Awakening. Great Awakenings are not merely "revivals"; they bring broad sweeping cultural and political change (as the word is defined).

I think that there will be a Great Awakening and there will be incredible economic ruin here in the USA. Also, there will be extreme decisions made which cause Americans to fear for their national security under an Obama administration. This combined with rising negatives towards our Christian faith are all going to combine with other factors.

Basically, people in the given states will support secession. The representatives will support secession at a State level. It will be a cultural/political shift that occurs. The Great Awakening will facilitate it, also, because there will be incredible conviction on the Christian church that their primary loyalty, allegiance, and identification is with God. As this primary identification grows in powerful conviction in the Holy Spirit - the ties to this world in national patriotism will be tipped in a different "balance". The Christians will feel a very strong impetus that they must have a nation under God - that is primary - and former allegiance to this United States of America will become inconsequential as they awaken towards God and their Christian duty to serve Him. (Persecution may "heat up" and further motivate people. Concern for the Civilian National Security Force Obama has discussed may "heat up" the matter - any efforts at gun control, etc., etc., etc.)

But there will be a basic "paradigm shift" and a strong sense of danger and a firm promise of provision even as the USA experiences lacks. Basically, there will be many motivating factors which will eventually hit a "strike point" or a "tipping point"... and the collective consciousness of Christian community in the USA will fundamentally change.

The States and the people will also have a resurgence of understanding of the 10th Amendment and the power of State sovereignty, how wrong it is for the central Government to national laws imposed on states. The States will see their right to secede to say "enough is enough" to basic, imo, Marxist national socialism that is coming more powerfully in the overthrow of our Constitution, our rights, and oru freedoms and liberties.

So, the people and the States in majority will support secession and it will be the will of the people.

That's in general terms how I see it advancing. Once the will of the people is established under God, then I believe God will be so "for" the people and secession - because it does line up with His Word - that God will protect the seceding states and people. I do not see "war" occurring as the result of secession. I see WMD's hitting the UN-USA (meaning it will not be the real USA anymore - and it will be surrendering Sovereign status, imo). (That move towards the surrender of Sovereign status to a global union via the UN, etc. will also motivate secession.)

So that's what I see, but can't say I "know" exactly how it will occur. But as the pressures mount and the motivating circumstances increase, and spiritual awakening occurs which "breaks" ties to this world, it's "kingdoms" and the union of this present nation of states (there will be a paradigm shift and a sense of urgency to separate from a "sitting duck" nation going to ruin adn threatening the safety of Christians, imo, and perhaps all citizens - but it will be the Christians who note and want to escape the disasters they see increasing and coming)....the concept of secession will become mainstream in the near future, imo.


Anonymous said...

Grace: Wow. I'm speechless.

Thank gods our founding fathers did their best to keep religion out of politics!

Laura Lee - Grace Explosion said...


I'll also state a "spiritual view" to add some of that "layer" to what I said above. In Canada, I think it was, Neo-Nazis, Islamo-fascists, AND hard left persons ALL marched together against Israel in protest. Those who would typically counter-protest against neo-Nazis actually were in the same group together with them protesting against Israel.

We see from this how hate unifies people - how shared hate for God, basically, unites people. This is the "unification" that is coming on the scene through Obama. The people who are at this time not as wicked... still are drawn to Obama. It's like alcoholism,imo. They say of an alcoholic to qualify their statements of what they would never do as the result of drinking with the term "yet"... because alcoholism is progressive and leads a person places they thought they "would never go". People who become alcoholic believe themselves stronger than the alcohol, but in the process of time... they are changed. KoolAid works the same way. The "Koolaid" of Obama will overpower people (from my pov viewing it as the spirit of antichrist).

The world really will unite. They will see a "grand purpose" in their unification. But the reality is that I believe is biblical is that it will be common hatred for common enemies that will unite the world by the spirit of antichrist. They will hate Christians and they will hate Jews. Many among them will die as well, but they will march like lemmings to the sea seeing "good" in Obama and having "hope" for "change". (Like the alcoholic who thinks they will never become what alcohol often creates in people's thinking, behavior, and lifestyles.)

People will be like the frog in the boiling water. They will think they are noble and good and pure. Yet what they consider abhorrent today and they think they are better than and "would never do"... they shall do. They shall be swept up into the hate in like manner as the German people were under Hitler.

Anyway, I believe I see in the plan of God the two different covenants and two different nations. The first is Israel and the Jews of the first covenant. God is still in covenant relationship with those Jewish people according to the promises of the first covenant. The Christians do not "replace" the Jews. Rather, we are in a tier of a second covenant relationship with God. I think that even as God protects Israel as "His chosen people"...and that people group has formed a separate and distinct nation from all the worlds... that is the "shadow" of the second covenant people. In a parallel of how Israel was called into being as a nation... so that the people group have a specific nation... that is what God is going to do in the USA in relation to the Christians here as a second covenant people. IN a parallel, the new Christian USA will "come out" of the current USA (see Rev. 18 & Rev. 12)to become a specific nation of God's elect. It will be a Christian "Israel" - but not competing against or "replacing" in any way the Israel of the first covenant as a people or as a nation.

Bottom-line, during the apocalypse, I believe I see God calling the Christians of the USA out of the larger USA and God having 2 nations on earth that He is specifically protecting as His remnant nations on earth: Israel of the first covenant and the new Christian USA of the second covenant. I sincerely believe, also, that I have an integral role to play in ministration of the full stature move of the Holy Spirit. Now, I may have a specific call - but it is not an "exclusive" call... inasmuch as this will become, as the Spirit moves, a broad-based move of the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ. I am an apostle... I was set into the prophetic office at age 3. Now, I'm merely human at a certain level... so I can by no means claim that I "see" the apocalypse with perfection and can say "Thus saith the Lord!" with some sort of ex cathedra authority in my view of the scripture and what shall occur. Yet, I do feel a strong sense of the Spirit in these things though I flatly admit it's part interpretation of scripture and part a sense of what is coming that I believe is "by the Spirit". Yet, I think all of us are capable of God revealing scripture in the body of Christ - so I think we must pray, seek the Lord, and wisely wait to see what shall occur even as we seek the Lord. I am just like everyone else as a believer, and time will tell if it's merely me being human... or if it really is the Holy Spirit revealing to me what shall occur. Just like everyone else, I have to wait and see... and am not claiming to be at all perfect in my knowledge of what shall occur. But I can say that I sense these things, and then other Christians can pray about it, seek the Lord, and weigh it. The Bible says that the prophets are to judge the word spoken by a prophet - and that all Christians are prophets, priests, and kings - the priesthood of all believers - because we all have the same Spirit. So basically, I'm throwing it on the table as what I'm discerning at present being a Christian - yet knowing I'm human - and waiting on the Lord myself for correction and/or clarification of what I perceive at this time. (I hope I qualified that well.) Yet, it does seem to "line up" doctrinally/spiritually.

Just like an evangelist can be wrong, a pastor can be wrong, so too can a person in my office. Everyone is human. People think that those offices mean things they don't mean biblically. The only Person who can't be wrong is Jesus. Paul and Peter and John and all the apostles in the Bible - God revealed their frailties and errors. They're just human. It's no big whoop like I can't be wrong. I sure can be. :) And have been before. I just know that my goal has always been the full stature move since I was 3. Maybe God has worked that in me - maybe He hasn't. Maybe I can speak the doctrines of grace in Jesus Christ (Calvinist basically) with such power the body of Christ will be empowered by sufficient Light of the Word by the Spirit to unite in agreement - finally - on these points... or maybe not. The Lord knows. I'm just a born-again Christian. :) But I just can't see why the Lord would have put that on my heart in my salvation unless He fully intended to bring it to completion. Yet, we can all misinterpret what the Lord says - and that makes us human though He is 100% true.

Hope that makes sense. But I see secession in the scripture during hte apocalypse to create a Christian nation very parallel to Israel that God will divinely protect... and may POSSIBLY (I don't know, honestly, and don't want to guess)... be the "preparation" for a literal rapture... presumably (as I see it)... mid-trib... if there is a mid-trib rapture.

It's either an educated "guess" (which could be wrong)... or it's the Lord revealing these things to me by the Holy Spirit that are in the Word - and I'm too human to know which until I see how things turn out. :)

Please feel free to put it in the "for whatever it's worth" category. I have and will see just like everyone else what really happens. I'm just so convinced, myself, Obama is "the one"... but I'm not God and will be watching to see if things continue to "line up". Whatever. That's my "explanation" that will make no sense to an atheist. :)


Anonymous said...

Grace: You really should write a book for people who care about this stuff. I know Greywolfe does. I've been to his blog and he's a big rapturist(?) too.

Interesting reading, if not totally whacked out.

Donald: Do you agree with this stuff? Is this where universal healthcare and gay marriage is taking us?

Just curious.

Greywolfe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Greywolfe said...

Tim, you are a complete idiot. "Thank gods our founding fathers did their best to keep religion out of politics!" You are quite possibly the perfect example of a product of the public mis-education system. Once again I offer you an educational opportunity that the so-called school you went to forgot/overlooked giving you.

Our founders were set on the idea that this was to be a God fearing Christian nation. For you to make the statement you did above, shows that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not going to completely highjack this thread beating you about the head and shoulders with facts. Go to my website and check my archives. Dec. 1, 2008. I covered this extensively and can add much more to the argument. If you would like to learn something please check it out. If you wish to hold on to your misinformation, feel free, but don't be surprised when those that know the truth of our history, smack you around when you make grossly retarded statements.