Saturday, 31 December 2011

Looking back on 2011 and Forward to 2012

(also has great chemtrail info)

This has been an interesting year...

The world population (according to U.N. calculations) reached 7 billion on October 31, 2011. Read National Geographic News for their comments about this.

Look Up Fellowship does a good job in mentioning some of the highlights of 2011, as well as some speculative projections for 2012... and it is an election year, many believe we are in for four more years of Obamamania.

I know that whatever has happened and whatever will happen is in the Creator of the universe's hands, and He promised us Romans 8:28

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to [his] purpose.

Happy New Year, may it be a blessing for you and your family and those closest to you as you draw near to the Lord in 2012.

1Peter 4:7  But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.

this link is another great source of info about chemtrails

Agenda 21

This video has some really shocking and terrible images that truly make the point...the devil is the "god of this world" ... come quickly Lord Jesus!

Agenda 21 Explained:

Here's the actual document for Agenda 21 (351 pages in pdf format):

and this next document was prepared by Freedom 21 Santa Cruz, explaining the implications of "sustainable development":

Friday, 30 December 2011

Green Bean Casserole

My first attempt at trying to make green bean casserole....well, actually my second. The first time I tried it with the Campbell's soup and used canned green beans, and Durky Onions... and it turned out pretty yucky....but this time I'm going to use frozen green beans (instead of the fresh that the recipe link suggests, trying to simplify it a little) and used the powdered rather than fresh ground of the commentors suggested cutting the amount of nutmeg in half...I watched the video and read a few of the I think I'll play it safe and use partly freshly made crispy onions, and partly store bought ones. I promised I'd make the casserole for the potluck at work tomorrow....I'll post in comments how it turns out for me, keep me in prayer on this one, I don't want to make others ill.

Link to recipe and the video too:

Wednesday, 28 December 2011

Rabbi's Prophecy of the Messiah

It's been six years now, and Ariel Sharon is still in a coma (or a coma-like state, this article states)... the reason I looked it up recently is because the Rabbi in this following Youtube video had left a message revealing who the true Messiah is to be opened one year after his death, and ... well I don't want to give it all away, but he also said the Messiah would come shortly after Sharon dies:

Monday, 26 December 2011

Freedom of the Believer

Does Jesus truly set us free? Free from what? What does that mean?

The whole thing about Christmas being completely pagan and the need to "throw the baby Jesus out with the bath water" as it is being discussed on Look Up Fellowship, is making me look at this topic once again.

This situation reminds me of the story of how circus people train elephants to remain on a chain. A very young elephant is chained with a  huge chain to a very large peg. He soon wearies himself trying to pull free from the chain. Eventually he resigns himself to the fact that he never will break free. Now the big chain can be replaced with a much smaller and weaker chain that will keep the elephant from breaking away, even though he has more than the needed strength to break free. When Jesus sets us free, we can be alot like that elephant that doesn't really believe that Jesus set us free. We still want to perform within the limitations that we have grown accustomed to. However, if my freedom causes weaker brethren and sisters to "sin" because they believe that living an extreme Puritan lifestyle is the only way Jesus will accept them, should I flaunt my freedom in their faces? The Apostle Paul said I shouldn't do that, but to have compassion for the weaker believers that feel that they must keep to rigid traditions (or a complete break with certain traditions) in order to keep themselves pure. I myself find I don't have to follow the traditions of my family, but can join with them and enjoy being with them in celebrations that I don't necessarily fully agree with, but do not feel condemned in being with them in the celebrating.

We are sanctified in Christ, by His blood, not by our doing or not doing, but "to them who think it is a sin, it is sin".... so should we cause them to sin by making them accept what they see as sin in us? The Apostle Paul said that was not a loving way to be towards others, so we should be mindful of their weak consciences. 

But then does that mean I should conform to their way so that their mind can be appeased? If I know it isn't true, then am I not a hypocrite? Shouldn't I be honest about it?

The way I see it (maybe I'm wrong) is if I am in their home, I would respect their way, and eat their food (if it's a food issue), and respect them if they feel unable to come to my home because I do things they see as abominable and my food and drink or habits are intolerable for them, and then not chide them for their weakness, neither let them judge me (Colossians 2:16) because we have one judge, and we all stand before Him.

We serve one God, He is over all. If one who serves Him wants to serve by not doing something, then that is how he will serve God. If another serves God by doing that which another man finds offensive, it is not for him to judge how another man serves God, but to pay attention to his own walk before the Lord.
We will each have to give an account for our own actions, and according to the scriptures love (poured out to us through the blood of Christ) covers a multitude of sins. (Proverbs 10:12)
He gives us His peace.

Edited to add:
A very nice link that has lots of verses which have to do with the freedom we have in Jesus:

Sunday, 25 December 2011

Celebrating Christmas Part 2

Something that is missing from this wheel is the word "spiritual" ... the abuse and the tearing apart of each other in backbiting and trying to boss each other around is very pervasive in the body of Christ.
Must it be so?

I've been looking at the comments on Jred's blog, the usual arguments against "the traditions of men"....but isn't it a "tradition of men" to tell other people what they should and shouldn't do, instead of following as the Holy Spirit directs? The Lord shows us how He can use things that bless people "in season and out of season" and find treasures in both old and new:

Mat 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.

We are not to force others to our own opinion, if they see it fine, and if they don't fine....and believe me it has taken me a long time to see that. When I felt strongly that the Lord showed me something, that I saw others doing wrong, I honestly felt it my duty and responsibility to force others to see what God had shown to me....that is not what God has put me here for. I can be guilty (and have done so, I confess) of this very abusive behavior myself.

Each of us is directed by God individually, and each of us is given gifts by God to do with as He personally directs each of us individually. What He has me to do might be (and probably is) different from what He has others do uniquely made to what He made me for. God didn't make cookie cutter Christians. :) I was reading something somewhere yesterday which stated that the way of the Lord is so narrow that it only lets one individual in at a time, not groups. We are each on the path that the Lord has mapped out for each of us as He has created us each individually, to be. Jesus is my shepherd, not another person dictating to me what he thinks I should be doing (or not doing).

If Jesus decides to bring some to a knowledge of who He is through celebrating His birth at Christmas time, why would He be wrong to do so? If some (many?) decide that Christmas is a good time to bring warmth to the winter months by remembering the blessedness of Jesus birth, why should anyone say "You mustn't do that!"...?

Jesus brings blessing and goodness to His own any and every season, not condemnation and cursing. Jesus birth into the world is a reason for celebrating and for thinking on with wonder and joy.

Just because some decide that Jesus not being born on Dec 25th should be a reason to not celebrate, well, that is their own journey, and peace be unto them.


Saturday, 24 December 2011

Merry Christmas!

Celebrating Christmas

I've been somewhat on the fence on this topic for many years...and that's because I really didn't know how I SHOULD stand on this topic. I've heard the arguments from both sides of the isle, and I find truth and error in both arguments. Those who say we shouldn't celebrate it at all make me that I mean, they seem to rigid and dogmatic to me. They remind me of Jehovah's Witnesses who say it is wrong to celebrate birthdays because the only birthday mentioned in the Bible cost John the Baptist his head. Well that IS true...but do we cut off someone's head to celebrate anyone's birthday these days? I agree that celebrating with a fictional character of Santa Claus and flying reindeer makes no sense...however, celebrating Jesus birth into the world ....(aside from the argument that His birthday PROBABLY WASN'T December 25th.....SO WHAT!???!) ....why exactly is it wrong?

So I was heartened to see that Jred spoke on this topic, and asks some very good questions:


 This year, I wondered why it is that we seem to know all the demonic, occult, pagan, Satanic things associated with this time of year as if we are experts on the subject (and all in the name of "exposing the darkness of deceit" consistent with Ephesians 5:11 and Matthew 10:16 I'm sure), but we don't seem to possess the same kind of knowledge when it comes to the holy, religious, redeeming, and spiritual aspects associated with this time of year?.....

.....There's something potentially significant that I'm wondering about. There's something pertaining to those who were alive in Jesus' time.

I imagine they had trouble (actually, we know they had trouble) accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God because of sin, yes, but also because some of them just couldn't understand why a "holy" and "sinless" God would incarnate Himself in a "fallen", "unholy", and "sinful" human body (Mark 10:45; 2 Corinthians 5:21). It's because sin is the reason for the season.

I bring that up because it seems to correlate quite nicely with this entire debate, doesn't it? I mean, those who oppose the celebration of Christmas will often cite all the verses from the Bible about mixing the "holy" with the "profane".

Forgive me, but isn't that what the birth of Jesus Christ is all about? Isn't the virgin birth a mixing of a holy God with an unholy human body? Isn't that the very essence of the thing we celebrate during this (or any other time of the year) as a fundamental tenet of our shared faith?

So what's the problem then? Why the constant debate? Why the protest? Why the incessant hand-wringing over the celebration of Christmas?


It does seem that those who advocate not celebrating Christmas in any way whatsoever do seem to know all about the Pagan, demonic, occult, Satanic things about it, and nothing of what is:

Philippians_4:8  Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

It's almost as if there is an all-pervasive need to always find the ugly about anything with some of these folks...and perhaps that is the problem Jesus saw in the Church at Ephesus:

Rev 2:2  "'I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false.
Rev 2:3  I know you are enduring patiently and bearing up for my name's sake, and you have not grown weary.
Rev 2:4  But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first.

With all the finding what is wrong with everything, do they ever mention what is good and sweet and gracious and encouraging? Perhaps they think that making everyone hate Christmas is doing good and sweet and gracious and encouraging things by making everyone aware (continuously) of every evil in the world....but then doesn't that go against Philippians 4:8 admonition to only concentrate on those things that are good and pure? Do we have to constantly find the ugly in everything and continue to purge it out with our disdain for anything that might even have a faint glimmer of possible Pagan influence in it? Or can we find that good part that might turn other people's attention back to the One who makes all things pure?

If Jesus is the reason for every season...doesn't that INCLUDE Christmas?


Edited to add:

 Jred had a couple of comments in the comment section, which he addresses, and then he has this which is about where I am with this right now too:

At the end of the day, I think this still holds true...

"To summarize briefly, I’m convinced by Scripture and conscience that Christians are not obligated to observe Christmas, and that Christians are not obligated to not observe Christmas.

Christmas observance, or non-observance, (just like the observance or non-observance of any other day) plainly falls into the Biblical category of a matter of indifference and liberty (Romans 14-15; Col 2:16-23).

My point in publishing this material isn’t to advocate for, or against, the observance of Christmas (or any other day), but rather to make the case that

a.) such things are matters of liberty and conscience in the light of Scripture
b.) many of the popular myths surrounding the origins of Christmas, even within the church, are often dubious, and sometimes misleading/false and 
c.) many of the most strident objections to the observance of Christmas if applied equally and consistently can have far reaching [and quite probably un-Biblical, legalistic] implications in actual practice."

Some of you will maintain that 'Christmas' IS ugly and evil. I get where you’re coming from. There are many points where I actually agree with you. Really, I do.

In the spirit of Romans 14, I’m okay with that though. I would never dream of trying to convince YOU that YOU should celebrate something that YOU don’t believe YOU should.

I’m just wondering where the line is drawn between 'celebration' and 'worship' because that’s what I think this all comes down to. Maybe that would’ve been a better angle for me to have approached this study from this year.

Thursday, 22 December 2011

The Star

Jeffrey Radt at Look Up Fellowship posted about the Star of Bethlehem today...and he got me thinking about stars....about how television and movie actors are called "stars", and "wishing upon a star", and the death star of "Star Wars"....and Nibiru, and Wormwood...anyway...I only got to watch the first 10 mins of the video that LUF had up but it is amazing! So I repost it here, in 3 parts:

Friday, 16 December 2011

Atheists Hijack Santa Monica's Christmas Displays

The woman in the picture above holding the sign is protesting the atheists actions by pointing out that this season really is supposed to be all about Jesus.
Organizers of Santa Monica's well-known Christmas Nativity scene at Palisades Park are accusing atheists of "hijacking" the tradition.
Atheist groups objected to use of the park by churches to espouse a religious message and applied to the city of Santa Monica for their own spaces.

Officials used a lottery to dole out spots in the prime location along Ocean Avenue. The atheists turned out to be the lucky ones: Of the 21 plots in the park open for displays, they won 18.  The Nativity story that once took 14 displays to tell — from the Annunciation, continuing to the manger in Bethlehem and onto infant Jesus' journey to Egypt and back to Nazareth — had to be abridged to three and crammed into two plots.

Read rest of article:

18 out of 21 wins for the atheists....pretty good odds for the atheists, wouldn't you say? I wonder how this "lottery" was performed? Seems like the odds were heavily weighted against Christians, no?

Sunday, 11 December 2011

More about Coconuts part 2

Found another article and more recipes!!! :D He mentions Whole Foods Market...I'll have to look, I have heard there's one near me somewhere...also there Dr. Mercola's website


A barrage of comments to our post on low-carb thickeners confirmed that while coconut flour is terrible for thickening sauces, it does serve other purposes. Our last post on a Primal flour – almond meal – went over well, so I figured the time was ripe for a look at coconut flour.
Coconut flour is simply dried, ground up coconut meat. Most likely you’ll be buying it online or from a specialty grocer, like Whole Foods or a food co-op, but you’ll occasionally come across highly processed, ultra-white coconut flour. Stay away from this. The good stuff will be like actual coconut – slightly cream colored, rather than bone white. You can make your own at home with a food processor, but without a grain mill you’ll probably have issues getting a “floury” consistency. If that’s okay with you, have at it.
Whether you’re making your own or buying it pre-made, always make sure your coconut flour is unsweetened. Pretty much all that you’ll come across is unsweetened, but it’s always worth it to make sure.
Apparently, defatting is one of the major steps in making it, so coconut flour doesn’t have much of the delicious, hearty coconut fat left over. It’s too bad, but understandable when you realize you’re dealing with a dry flour designed for baking. That’s pretty much my only qualm with coconut flour, as everything else looks good. According to my just-bought bag of Aloha Nu organic coconut flour, 2 tablespoons of the stuff contain:
1.5 g fat (1 g saturated fat)
10 g carbs (with 9 g fiber, bringing the net carb count to a measly 1)
2 g protein
Those are pretty great stats, especially when compared to the glucose-boosting powers of “normal” flours like wheat or white. Less hearty than almond meal, but also less heavy and closer in texture to the other, forbidden flours (if that’s what you’re going for). Coconut flour can be used to bake, but be forewarned that it’s very dry and doesn’t stick together well (hence its uselessness as a sauce thickener); avoid this problem by adding eggs to the mix, which allows it to bond and form batter. I’ve also had success using it in a light egg batter for fried coconut chicken. I’d assume it would work equally well for shrimp or fish.
Okay, onto a few recipes.

Coconut Bread

I’m not a big baker, but I can appreciate those who are. For those budding Primal bakers who still miss bread, why not try to make some with coconut flour? Slightly sweet and fairly light (as opposed to the denser breads made with almond meal), this coconut bread should do the trick.
6 eggs
1/2 cups ghee (or butter)
1-2 tablespoon honey, depending on taste
1/2 teaspoon sea salt
1 teaspoon baking powder
3/4 cup coconut flour
Preheat your oven to 350. Whisk it all together, or blend in a food processor until all lumps are gone. Grease a bread pan with butter or coconut oil and pour your batter in. Bake for 40 minutes.
If we split it up into six servings each slice will, according to FitDay, have:
30.9 g fat
13.2 g carbs (9 g fiber)
8.35 g protein

Coconut Pancakes

Drizzle these with honey and berries, wrap up some bacon and eggs for a Primal breakfast burrito, or just eat them plain. These things are incredibly easy to make.
4 eggs
1/4 cup coconut flour
1/4 tsp vanilla extract
1 pinch nutmeg
1 pinch cinnamon
1 tablespoon honey
1/4 cup coconut milk (full fat)
Mix these ingredients and let them sit for five minutes. Oil or grease up your pan and heat over medium heat. Pour about a 1/4 cup of batter for each crepe, allowing each side to brown before flipping it.
Without accounting for toppings or cooking fat, FitDay says the whole batch amounts to:
37.2 g fat (20.9 g saturated)
42.2 g carbs (19.4 g fiber)
30.6 g protein

Coconut Crusted Chicken

This doesn’t even require an ingredient list. Simply take your chicken pieces (or shrimp, or fish), season them with salt and pepper, dunk them in an egg bath (just scrambled up raw egg), then dredge them in coconut flour, then back in the egg bath, and then coat with dried coconut flakes. After that, it’s just a matter of frying them in oil (use coconut) or sautéing them in some butter. Crunchy, delicious, and low-carb.

Saturday, 10 December 2011

More about Coconuts

This is a "part two" to a posting from a couple of days ago. I was looking around a bit more, following links as I went along and found this recipe. It looks like it could be delicious! It'll be a few days before I can test it out...if anyone sees this and tries it before I do, please let me know how it turns out for you :)


Many of the hundreds of emails that flooded my inbox after the Wheat Belly book review was published were from people seeking wheat substitutes for their daily delights.

The reason I eliminated wheat from my diet before I had even heard of Dr. William Davis’ toxic wheat theory was to reduce carbohydrates, as I suspected I had a carbohydrate intolerance. Most gluten-free flours are still high in carbohydrates (and may be perfectly fine for your weight loss and health but were not for me), so I turned to coconut flour.

Coconut flour is made from ground coconut meat and is super high in fibre (61 per cent as opposed to wheat bran’s 27 per cent fibre content). It has three times as much fibre as it does digestible carbohydrate, which works well for my diet goals.

It is also high in fat. Coconut fat, I have discovered, is a very intriguing substance. Among alternative nutritionists it has the reputation of being a low calorie fat (not that I could care less about counting the calories I am consuming any more; I’ll talk about that in another blog). For those who do count, it actually has slightly fewer calories than other fats: 8.6 calories per gram, not 9 calories per gram.

Coconut fat is also unique in that it is comprised of medium-chain fatty acids, where most of the fats in the Western daily diet are made up of long-chain ones, and the medium ones are more easily digested and have a reputation of both increasing metabolism and reducing appetite. I have been consuming coconut oil in large quantities, and have found all this to be true. Actually I have tripled my fat intake in the past few months, and my weight loss is at 26 pounds, as of today. (More about that in another blog, too)

The muffin recipe below is adapted from one by Dr. Bruce Fife, ND, who is a prolific author on the nutritional benefits of coconut. If you don’t like the taste of coconut, then I’m sorry, but it is riddled with it. Even a beginner cook can make muffins, and you don’t need much in the way of fancy kitchen equipment, even a toaster oven will do.

The best part? One of these muffins fills me up for 3-4 hours.

Basic coconut muffins

3 large eggs

1/4 cup sugar (or the equivalent if you are watching sugar intake)

1/4 cup melted coconut oil (or melted butter)

1/2 tsp vanilla essence

1/4 tsp salt

1/2 cup coconut flour

1/2 tsp baking powder

2-6 tablespoons liquid, sometimes more (canned full cream coconut milk, milk, cream, water, or I am using a product called So Delicious unsweetened dairy-free coconut milk beverage)

Heat your oven to 375 deg F. Grease your muffin pans (or make your life easy and get some silicon baking cups – best invention ever). Whisk the eggs with salt, vanilla, oil, and if you are using a liquid sugar substitute add it now). Stir together the flour and baking powder, and sugar or dry sugar equivalent ingredient, then stir it into the egg mix.

Now don’t freak out. Coconut flour is hugely absorbent and your muffin mix will look like an ugly lump. Stir in the liquid (the amount of which changes on any given day depending on the humidity in my experience) until it reaches a texture where you can scoop it up in a spoon and drop it as a semi-solid mass into the baking cups. Don’t scoop it yet, though.

Now is the adding fun flavours part: I stir in 1/2 a cup of frozen raspberries (two reasons: my freezer has a supply of homegrown ones, and they are a good low-carb fruit) but 1/2 cup of any fruit will work. Now scoop the mix into the cups. It won’t rise an awful lot , so fill them up.

At this stage I have added cubes of cream cheese poked into each (my husband’s favourite), and toppings like shredded unsweetened coconut (yes, I have gone a little coconutty) or slivered almonds.

Bake 15-18 mins – they are done when they are browned. This recipe makes 6 muffins, but you can double the mix and they freeze well.

Nutritional content will vary with your ingredients.

Friday, 9 December 2011

Really Cool Video

This is an experiment, lol...although the video clip shows a wonderful individual! Isn't it wonderful how God has given us creativity and a desire to accomplish goals! This young man was able to use those gifts wonderfully well!

Thursday, 8 December 2011

Interesting Facts about Coconut Oil

Found a website that tells about the many health benefits of using coconut oil in our diet. One of these benefits is that it can help with weight loss because when it is added to the diet it satisfies hunger faster and keeps us from getting hungry again over longer stretches of time. It also improves the metabolism so it increases the feeling of well being and helps the body burn more calories by increasing one's stamina and energy.

Read about the many benefits of coconuts and coconut oil here:

Every Cancer can be Cured....

This is an interesting clip given by a European doctor who states that every cancer can be cured from days to weeks by making the body more alkaline. He states that we need salt...not the table salt that is sold which he says is mixed with glass and sand...and damages our blood vessels which cause our blood vessels to bleed, which in turn causes our bodies to react by trying to coat the vessels which then eventually clogs the arteries. He states that we need sea salt.

Video clip description at video site:

Dr. Leonard Coldwell states that all cancers can be cured within four months. Listen to his reasons behind that statement and how it may be done. Dr. Coldwell also says that you need salt, even if you have high blood pressure. Find out why that is and why sea salt is better for you.

See his website

and then there's the "skeptics" comments (Skeptics Guide to the Universe Blog):

Tuesday, 29 November 2011

Zionism, Mossad, the True Remnant, and Antisemitism

Wow, how's that for a topic? I was looking at several 9/11 truth videos, and a few pointed to the Mossad and Israel as being the real culprits behind the attacks, and that when it is revealed, the U.S. will be so angry that she will destroy Israel, wiping Israel completely off the earth was one way one of the speakers put it. It may be so that there were Zionist factions behind what happened on September 11th 2001, there are some suspicious occurrences which make it seem possible, even probable, that Israel had something to do with it. And what if that were so? What if the truth comes out, and the truth points directly and unavoidably at Israel being at the very core of all that mess to get us to bomb all her enemies to kingdom come? Is it a Christian response to bomb Israel off the face of the earth?

I personally do believe there were Zionists (both Christian and Jewish) who were "in the know" and involved in at very least allowing or facilitating and assisting (if not in the actual planning and full carrying out) in the 9/11 atrocities. I do not agree with the "eye for an eye" system of justice. As the saying goes, if we play by that rule, we would all be blind, and I do believe the Lord wants us to see what He is going to do. Yes, Israel has made mistakes, so has the United States, and any other country you want to name. We've all blundered as individuals, and as nations, we all fall short of perfection. Why is the world's solution to viciously repay for any wrongdoing, perceived and otherwise?

Jesus said to "watch and pray". I believe His solution is best. He will handle everything perfectly in His time. The world will continue to wage wars for all kinds of reasons. I personally believe that the main reason wars are fought is because there are bloodthirsty people that want to continue the atrocities. We won't stop them, Jesus will at the appointed time. In the meantime, we as His sheep are to watch, and pray.

CIA Whistleblower

This is very interesting for those who have been following the 911 Truth Movement stuff...Susan Lindauer is a former CIA asset who speaks out about what the CIA and the president knew about 911 hijackers, and the fact that Iraq was completely cooperative with the U.S. wanting peace more than anything in the world. Listen to what she knew of what was going on at that time...she admits there are things that she does not know, and that you may or may not agree with what she concludes from the actual facts that she was privy to, because there are other people that may have known other facts, and some of this comes out during the question and answer period that she admits there were "many strange things going on":

Thursday, 24 November 2011

Ron Paul?

 Ron Paul's "What If" speech:

I agree, he says some very good things here:

Bill O"Reilly won't let Ron Paul answer:

Personally, I like Ron Paul, truly I do...but I'm afraid he might go the way of Fritz Springmeier, JFK, Martin Luther King, and Bill Cooper (and many others as well). I hope I'm wrong, and given the chance, will vote for him next election, but last I checked the devil is still the "god of THIS world" (even though he only holds that position very temporarily, and Jesus is the true GOD of the universe, superseding all the stupidity in this world...) and the devil lashes out when the truth starts making sense to people, is all I'm saying.

And I also followed a few clips about the "mistake" Faux, errr I mean FOX news made when announcing the CPAC straw poll for 2011:

Here's their apology:

Of course! It was a silly little mistake! Easy to make such a silly little mistake....why didn't they show the actual clip of what really took place?

Thursday, 17 November 2011

Instilling Fear...

Matthew 24:10

And then many shall be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another....

Watch the following and see if it instills a "sense of security" or if it generates mistrust, hatred for others, and fear:

Setting the stage for the antiChrist.

Monday, 14 November 2011

I Knew It!

Finally it comes out that politicians can do things "legally" that are illegal for us "regular folks"
Link to article

Why am I so surprised?...I mean I suspected this all along, so why is this still shocking to me?

Sunday, 6 November 2011

The Disclosure Project

What is "The Disclosure Project"? It is a group of very intelligent individuals who fully believe they have seen definite proof of alien landings and dealings with human kind.

Here's a link to their website:
I hope that you honestly hear them out, and hear me out, about this topic because I do believe that we should know about this. I feel it is what the Bible was speaking on in Matthew ch 24:

verse 24 says:
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
If you have the two hours to spend, watch the video of what they say:

But hold on there, you might be thinking that I believe there are little green men hiding out at Area 51. That is not what I think, but I do believe there is demon activity involved, and that perhaps they might take that form at times, if it suits their purpose. I also think there is a possibility that there is holographic image technology that is coming into play, and that will be used to deceive many. (This next one is only 10 minutes)

And this is a short clip of what appears to be buildings over the water in China ...holographic image?

This Kate Moss Hologram has been around a while...

and leads me to thinking that "they" used this technology in this situation ... listen carefully about what happened to the "terrorist" that was waterboarded:

Something strange is going on. Putting all this together, with what I mentioned at the top of this posting, I think there is a possibility that those disclosure project people are telling the truth.... the truth of what they have been mind controlled to honestly believe and possibly also what they have seen through holographic imaging projections. Pretty elaborate hoax? Why? That is the question, isn't it? Why is all of this going on? What do "they" want out of all of this? Good questions to ponder and pray about....

Friday, 4 November 2011


Tonight when I stepped out to take out the trash, lo and behold a beautiful almost night-time sky, just a bit of sunset orange at the horizon...and chemtrails, that looked almost beautiful on a sky that went from light blue near the horizon to almost royal blue directly above me. It was a stunning view, and if I were handy with a camera, and maybe a little bit earlier to get the colors to show up on a picture, I would have taken a snapshot. But it looked very close to this:

But if I were as good at getting good sky shots as Ma is on her blog, it would have looked prettier than the above picture, however the sky did have about that many trails, but in nicer lines and approaching the area of the orange horizon the sky had a a teal blue color.It was so pretty, and I felt so sorry that I didn't catch it on film, or pixels...

It then occurred to me that I haven't posted on chemtrails/contrails. Aren't they just simply the exhaust from airplanes, you might ask...??? Well....MAYbe.....but there are some (many?) who believe there is a whole lot that we are not being told about them. Here's one possibility:

and then there is this theory (?...or possible truth?)....trying to block the heat from the sun to stop "global warming"?

What do you think? Is this some kind of "conspiracy"? Or are these simply contrails? Either way, I'm not worried about it, because nothing surprises the Lord, nor is anything "they" do hidden from Him, so it's all eventually going to come out "in the wash" so to speak. It is something that I do want to be aware of, and want to know the truth about, if possible...

Friday, 21 October 2011

Wars of Religion Part 2: It's a Matter of Opinion

After our last written assignment, my professor knocked off points (got 70% on the assignment, that is below a "C") and told me my opinion was wrong. Here are his comments and an email exchange that followed:

Prof's comments on my assignment:
You overlook the fact that the Scots actually start the fighting, and do so over a prayerbook. You also overlook the Irish flat out revolting over religion. Charles claims that all his actions are divinely ordained, clear religious activity, and the Parliament opposed these claims. How again is this not a war of religion? All the countries that had these official wars also had people using religion to settle old grudges. The fact that there were old grudges (decades of arguing about the place of King and Parliament) does not mean that religion was not the cause. If anything the fact that religion is where they finally spilled over from arguing to killing indicates that it was religiously motivated.

My 1st email response:
The fact that these people were all very religious in their own ways, I agree with. The fact that there were small skirmishes with the Irish and the Scotts and the fact that the king along with being power-hungry, attributed that to God's will, I also agree with. However, the book states:
"By 1642, the king (supported by many of the nobility, great landowners, and conservatives and moderate Anglicans) was at war with many of the parliamentarians (supported by lesser gentry and yeomen, the merchant classes, the large cities, and the Puritan) The English Civil War (1642-1648) consequently broke out. "
According to the textbook, it makes it look like it is upper classes (with the King)against lower classes (with Parliament) and some of those groups happened to fall within Anglicans (upper with king) and Puritans (lower class with Parliament).
This is the third (fourth?) time you have said to give our opinion, and then state my opinion is wrong. Did you want me to discover your opinion and state it? I'm just wondering. Great class, though, I've learned alot, and enjoyed it...and I think I've learned a little about your opinions ;-)

****(This is directly from what he asked of us for this assignment: After reading the article on the various wars of Religion. There is one famous war from that age not included - The English Civil War. Determine whether or not the English Civil War of the 1640's was a "War of Religion"? Be sure to include historical facts to support your opinion. )****

Prof's reply to my 1st email response:
In the online environment almost anything the professor says is immediately latched onto and repeated by students. This leads to a very poor form of education. Any time I state an opinion before an assignment is due all I get back is my opinion. All assignments in this class are left open to allow students the freedom to try their 'wings'. For the first few weeks there are no repercussions for being wrong to encourage students to be themselves. This does not mean that there are not right and wrong answers. Throughout the course most of the assignments do not have a "wrong" answer and whatever choice is made will result in full credit so long as historical support and explanation is included. If a student does the basics of supporting their thoughts with explanation and historical facts they still receive a passing grade, just not an "excellent" grade, or an "above Average" grade. Failure to appreciate the historical facts is a problem, but not the end of the world. By the way there were eight of these assignments during the semester. If you only went astray three times, you got it "right" more times than not, and better than most.
As to your specific questions for this assignment, The Parliament at this time was at the very least extremely rich, and almost all either Nobles, or about to be nobles. Thus when King and Nobles fights Parliament, it is King and Nobles fighting Nobles. Both sides had their underlings from the lower orders. You will notice that by the textbook definition the English Civil War does not start until 1642, when most sources say 1640. And the textbook lists the ECW as lasting until 1648 when Charles was in Parliament hands for more than a year and imprisoned for two by that time thus effectively ending the war. Remember what your text ignores Charles was King of: England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (along with a bunch of other places). When the people are in revolt in three of four of the main places it is rather poor form to ignore two of those three.
Does all this make sense?

My 2nd email response:

You do make me think alot deeper than what is given in the textbook, and I enjoy that very much...
Both sides had their underlings from the lower orders. You will notice that by the textbook definition the English Civil War does not start until 1642, when most sources say 1640. And the textbook lists the ECW as lasting until 1648 when Charles was in Parliament hands for more than a year and imprisoned for two by that time thus effectively ending the war. Remember what your text ignores Charles was King of: England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (along with a bunch of other places).
I understand, and also agree with you, that a person (or persons) who puts together a textbook will have their own opinions and own priorities on the things that they think are more important (leaving out what they think might not have influenced a situation as much as what they think were the main reasons, etc) because you do have to draw lines somewhere, not every issue and jot and tittle can be brought up, and different people will have different opinions on where the cut off points need to be. I often find myself in disagreement with authors of books, or professors on a certain point on a topic, and even so I learn through the experience. :)
Also, I go onto Christian message forums, and have disagreed with the majority on issues like whether Christians should kill Muslims in wars, whether that is being a good Christian. Most American Christians think in order to be a good Christian, one must support Israel, which to them means to kill Arabs. In my OPINION, being a good Christian means to "PRAY FOR YOUR ENEMIES" even while they are killing me, as Jesus did. I've been kicked off Christian message forums for saying this....(!!!???!!!) sheesh....
I understand that you want us to think about things "from our opinion" before giving us yours, and the reasons for your opinions which do make sense even when I still hold to my own (I can understand the logic although I come to a different conclusion), instead of giving us your opinions right off the bat, and what the textbook says as gospel truth. I agree that I, for one anyway, am learning alot this way, and do enjoy this teaching style better than the other way.

Not that I think it will change anyone's opinions (lol) but this web article also seems to say that although there were religiously motivated people involved in conflicting situations in England during this time, it was the problem of politics, money and power, that was the cause of the English Civil War:

Thursday, 20 October 2011

Wars of Religion

For this assignment we were to read about civil wars that occurred during the high middle ages. We were given an article, I tried to find the original location for this article, but it was removed...but found it here (with that Washington U link at bottom, which was removed)

Anyway...our assignment was to read this article, and then decide if the English Civil War ....(this article was not part of our assignment, but I don't want to type out all that our textbook had to say about it) was a religious war...

So what do YOU think? Was the English Civil War a "religious war"?

I'll edit this post later to add my paper and a dialogue of back and forth between my prof and I :)



Ok, that sparked alot of interest, lol :)

Oh well, that's ok. This was an interesting assignment for me because it examined the reasons for people fighting and for feeling justified to kill other people. If you read the linked article it acknowledges the fact that many people in England were fighting about spiritual matters. They were fighting about a prayer book. They fought about the Catholic influence seeping into the Anglican Church. They were angry with Charles for taking a Catholic bride. However the article gives the long time bickering over whether the king should have all the power, or if Parliament (who had been getting used to making some of the decisions) got to share some of that power with the king. The king thought he should have all the power and control of England. Parliament disagreed with him. The people were divided, some backed the king, and some backed Parliament.

This is what I wrote for our assignment:

The religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries were between Protestants and Catholics. It started out with no bloodshed, just a lot of bickering and arguing about whose religion was right, each accusing the other of heresy. But that peace was shattered when “Protestants and Catholics would (later) shed each other's blood in prodigious amounts in national wars and in civil wars.”(from the article: Discovery and Reformation; Reformation Religious Wars). In France it was between the Huguenots (Protestants) and Guises (Catholics). There was already animosity between these families, which were intensified with the spiritual conflicts. “It is important to understand that the rivalry between the Guises and the other two families was primarily a political rivalry; this political rivalry, however, would be swept up in the spiritual conflict between the Catholic church and the new reformed churches.” (Ibid.)
The Guises “understood what this religious tolerance was all about and quickly clamped down on it. In March, 1562, an army led by the Duke of Guise attacked a Protestant church service at Vassy in the province of Champagne and slaughtered everybody they could get their hands on: men, women, and children—all of whom were unarmed. Thus began the French Wars of Religion which were to last for almost forty years and destroy thousands of innocent lives.” (Ibid.)

By comparison, the English Civil War occurred during a time when there were religious factions that didn't like each other in England; the Puritans (Calvinists) and Anglicans. The Anglicans were of two main stripes: one that accepted many of the Catholic traditions minus a pope, and one that didn't accept any of the Catholic rituals. However England's civil war centered around a power struggle between the king and Parliament.

The English Civil War started in 1642 when Charles I raised his royal standard in Nottingham. The split between Charles and Parliament was such that neither side was willing to back down over the principles that they held and war was inevitable as a way in which all problems could be solved. The country split into those who supported the king and those who supported Parliament – the classic ingredients for a civil war.

It didn't help the king that he married a Catholic, it made a difficult relationship with Parliament even more difficult. It caused Parliament to trust the king even less than they already did. The king wanted absolute power, and the Parliament had gotten used to the fact that they had “enjoyed a real partnership with the royal government.” (Concise Survey of Western Civilization; Pavlac; ch 10 page 220) “In June 1642 the Long Parliament passed a new set of demands called the Nineteen Proposals that called for the King's powers to be greatly reduced and a greater control of government to be given to parliament. This move divided parliament between those who supported the Nineteen Proposals and those who thought parliament had gone too far.

Both Parliament and Charles began collecting together their own armies. War was inevitable. People were forced to choose sides and on 22nd August 1642, the King raised his standard at Nottingham”

It polarized the people to join either the king's side, or the side of Parliament.

This problem was all resolved in 1688. “In the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English established the basic system of republican and constitutional government that still exists today...they forced James to flee to France. Parliament then invited James' Protestant daughter Mary to be queen, with her husband William of Orange, as co-ruling king...The victorious Parliament generously approved a small measure of toleration for religious dissenters, both Roman Catholics and Presbyterian Calvinists” (Concise Survey of Western Civilization; Pavlac; page 222)

The way I understand it, this civil war was a power struggle between the king who only wanted a Parliament who would offer him suggestions and remain meekly in the background giving him absolute power, and a Parliament who had gotten used to being able to make some of the rules. It was therefore not a religious war. Religion became a contributing factor to the problem but was not the main issue. Our system of government here in the states today similarly shares a “balance of powers” so no one individual takes totalitarian control that can be abused. All those that make up “the balance of powers” have their problems, just as the king and his Parliament did during the time of England's civil war, but it is preferable to a power hungry absolute dictator. The side of the war I would have picked would be Parliament's side. I would be leery of a king that wanted complete power and was trying to control what the church did, by making it more Catholic to please his bride.

In a few days I'll add a surprising comment from the professor that led to a little email dialoguing back and forth....until then...:-) Be well

Friday, 7 October 2011

Economic Crisis

Interesting article stating the

Top 100 Statistics About The Collapse Of The Economy That Every American Voter Should Know 

Each is linked to an article that substantiates the item listed.

Here's a good article about truly beneficial ways (and it doesn't include handing them money) we can help those (if we are in a position to help) who are unstable or homeless:

Prophecy from 90 year old woman given in 1968

Not sure (I was unable to verify this myself...yet, anyway...if I do find out more I'll put it into comments) if this really was from 1968 and who the "90 year old (Norwegian) lady" was.

Found a discussion about it on

There are the usual scoffers, and then there are some which say "if it causes some people to put oil into their lamps in preparation...." (Romans 8:28 always)

The Supernatural

The fact that there are "otherworldly experiences" goes without saying. Many people would like to dismiss them altogether by saying that there is always a rational or scientifically sound explanation for these occurrences. They make us uncomfortable. They are the things of "horror movies" or "sci-fi thrillers". They cannot possibly involve something so primitive and superstitious as demons or devils. Surely these come from psychological predispositions, i.e. explainable illnesses with medical causes. Certainly that MUST be the case, or we might all be susceptible, and the thought is just too frightening to be acceptable....

I watched a video that Elizabeth Prada has on her blog

In another post where she talks about demonic possession, she tells of a situation involving a school where
"One parent believes the demons were released during the Divali pooja (Hindu prayer) at the school". Witnesses such as school officials and MTS security guards saw "unimaginable feats of strength (confirmed report), gravity defying leaps, speech in tongues and suicidal whispers (reported by a victim)" Read the rest of post here

What does the Bible say about demon possession?

Ephesians 6:10-24