new

I know it’s typical for those on the political left to demand peer-reviewed studies, videotape and signed affidavits proving the assertions some of us make concerning the machinations of the Obama administration and socialist encroachment at large, but we all are aware by now that this is a diversion. It’s also a good indicator that we’re correct in said assertions. Like the left’s tendency for projection, wherein they accuse the opposition of that in which they are themselves engaged, it’s a fairly transparent ruse.

—

For example: On June 11, Lord Monckton reported in WND that a U.S. congressman told him the birth certificate for the president released by the White House was “unquestionably a forgery,” and “We all know that.” The congressman went on to cite fear of political retribution as the rationale for most cases of Obama’s political opponents eschewing the subject.

Rather risk-averse when compared to those who founded this nation, and cowardly considering the stakes, but we’ll move on.

There are things that go beyond the pale even of political intrigue and scandal, and there is ample evidence the president has been involved in some of these also. Once again, you’re not going to get peer-reviewed studies, videotape, or signed affidavits here. But the coincidences or confluence of events tend to dispel the idea that these are wild accusations.

In fact, they’re not accusations at all; they’re theories.

There is an entire true crime novel in the case of the Trinity United Church murders, two gay men known to Obama who were killed execution-style in 2007 at a time when charges of homosexuality and drug use were being leveled at the candidate. Years later, as reported in WND, an entire network of closeted professional gay black men at the Chicago church was exposed.

Ancillary to the question of Obama’s eligibility, there was the case of Leiutenant Quarles Harris Jr. (not a military officer; he just had a weird name), a hustler who was also killed execution-style on April 18, 2008, during an investigation into the theft of the passport records of candidate Obama, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Hillary Clinton. John Brennan, who became Obama’s counterterrorism adviser and later CIA chief, was also implicated in this case (of the passport records, not the murder).

On Aug. 6, 2012, Jennifer Gallagher, a 46-year-old nurse, drowned mysteriously while vacationing with her family in Iowa. Gallagher had been on the team that attended to victims of the July 20 Aurora, Colo., theater shooting. She was also among staffers who met with President Obama during his highly publicized visit of the shooting victims. Several inconsistencies came to light in the theater shooting accounts and aspects of the subsequent investigation; one can’t help but wonder if Gallagher came by information on the night of the shooting that wound up being detrimental to her health.

Then, of course, we have the off-the-chart suspicious death of journalist Michael Hastings on June 18 in a car wreck worthy of any action film. The circumstances surrounding the incident are right out of a political thriller and have all the hallmarks of a staged accident. Hastings was the individual whose reporting brought down the career of Gen. Stanley McChrystal; reportedly under government surveillance, he was also said to be working on a story involving domestic government spying at the time of his death.

So there we have it. There are more than a few other suspicious deaths that some attribute to Obama, from his dog trainer to Andrew Breitbart. I have asserted that the attack on the Libyan mission on Sept. 11, 2012, had its genesis in Obama’s need to “erase” either the administration’s illegal operations in Libya or Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself.

Whether or not the president had a hand in any or all of these may never be known for certain, even if his treason someday becomes common knowledge. What chills the blood in this time of domestic spying, drones, data mining centers and FEMA camps is the possibility that there are those working among us who might actually be willing to kill for this treacherous mobster.

(Women and hats and gay marriage caused God to burn down Colorado)

Buehner: Colorado is asking for judgment and God is delivering it in little pieces. He is very gracious that He hasn’t destroyed the whole state yet; I think that’s an act of grace. But then the question is: of all of Colorado, why Colorado Springs? I mean, Colorado Springs is the Christian mecca. Why not wipe out Boulder or Denver? I mean those people are in more radical rebellion.

Swanson: Oh yeah, they’re Democrats up there.

Buehner: And the answer is: judgment begins in the House of God.

—

Swanson: Coming back from Australia, I’m stuck in fourteen hours of these visual presentations, sitcoms and stuff, on seventeen screens in front of me and I’ve never seen so many breasts in all of my life. The immodesty going on in our society is far worse than it was back when Cheers, Family Ties and The Cosby Show was playing. I mean every form of aberrant sexuality and women’s breasts are shown in front of me almost nonstop for fourteen hours. It’s just such an oppressive, horrible, horrible world and so many of our young girls in our Christian churches are running down to Wal-Mart and buying the same clothes. These are the sorts of things that I’m bringing out in front of God’s people, I’m saying: how are we going to repent of the sexual sin that is paraded in front of us in the wider culture? Why do we have to submit to theses sexual sins again and again?

I brought up androgyny and how many young boys are running out and doing the metrosexual thing with the skinny pants and the little fairy shoes. They’re working on the gender blender for themselves and they don’t want to look like a man and God is just so upset, He hates it when man are not manly in their approach. 1 Corinthians 6 speaks about homosexuality and feminine behavior and feminine dress for men. God does not want men to be androgynous and feminine like in their approach; He gave them facial hair for a reason.

These are the sorts of things that I preached yesterday because I said, you could just say, ‘well all of the unisex, homosexual, metrosexual stuff that’s out in the world is so bad but we’re not going to repent of anything, we’re not going to look any different, we’re not going to bear any fruits of repentance in the way that we dress and the way that we interact.’ Then I brought out the whole thing on feminism and how feminism has corrupted our women today. I brought out this quote from Forbes magazine, July 27, 2012:

It’s hard to deny the key role that fashion has played in the women’s movement—Ms. Magazine points to New York City women garment workers in the early 20th century who wore hats to signify that they were earning their own money, and thus financially independent. Women in the 1980s adopted a male style of dress—ties, tailored skirt suits, shoulder pads—in order to gain a foothold in the male dominated world of business. And Carol Moseley Braun, the first African American woman elected to the U.S. Senate, wore a pantsuit on the Senate floor in 1993, ending the Senate’s ban on women wearing slacks there.

My question was: Do you resist feminist trends? Do you argue with it? Do you find ways to oppose it? Or do you just succumb to it and just kowtow to feminism? Dave, I’m afraid this stuff is all over the place in our nice little evangelical, reformed, conservative, fundamentalist churches.

Buehner: Kevin my main text this last Lord’s Day: God is a consuming fire.