OBAMA DRONES HAVE KILLED 2400 LIVES IN FIVE YEARS
Five Years Of Obama Death Drones
Have Snuffed Out 2400 Lives:
Month: January 2014
NSA DATA COLLECTION ILLEGAL AS PER FEDERAL OVERSIGHT BOARD
Federal Panel Says
NSA Data Collection Illegal,
Should be Ended
EXCERPTS:
“The National Security Agency’s bulk collection of phone records is illegal and should be ended, an independent federal watchdog agency concluded in a report released Thursday. The report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) also concluded the NSA program has resulted in only “minimal” benefits to efforts to protect the nation from terror attacks,according to the New York Times, which obtained an advance copy of the 238-page document.”
“We simply disagree with the board’s analysis on the legality of the program,” Jay Carney, the president’s press secretary said Thursday.”
“The program “lacks a viable legal foundation under Section 215, implicates constitutional concerns under the First and Fourth Amendments, raises serious threats to privacy and civil liberties as a policy matter, and has shown only limited value,” the privacy board concluded.”As a result, the board recommends that the government end the program.””
NSA, DHS & TSA IMPLEMENTING POLICE STATE INDOCTRINATION WITH DISPLAYS OF JOINT FORCES
THE POLICE STATES OF NEW JERSEY & NEW YORK
FLEX THEIR MUSCLES
TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE COMPLIANT & DOCILE
Airport Style Security for Super Bowl XLVII
EXCERPTS:
“The Super Bowl’s annual role as a poster child for the police state will continue uninterrupted this year with low flying helicopters, airport-style security and checkpoints throughout New York and New Jersey.”
““The U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration will use a twin-engine Bell 412 helicopter equipped with radiation sensing technology, flying in a grid covering about 10 square miles at altitudes of 150 feet or higher at about 80 miles per hour, according to the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management,” reports the Jersey Journal.”
LIST OF ITEMS BANNED FROM SUPER BOWL:
Major League Baseball Prepares
New DHS Screening Measures
at All Ballparks:
EXCERPTS:
“Major League Baseball teams began announcing new metal detection screening measures Tuesday, a mandatory league-wide policy expecting full implementation by 2015.”
“Using the Boston Marathon bombing as justification, all venues have been required to subject fans to hand-held metal detection sweeps or walk-through magnetometers, a result of the Department of Homeland Security’s encroaching relationship with professional sports leagues.”
““This procedure, which results from MLB’s continuing work with the Department of Homeland Security to standardize security practices across the game, will be in addition to bag checks that are now uniform throughout MLB,” baseball spokesman Michael Teevan told the Associated Press.”
Also see:
CHURCHES STOPPED FROM FEEDING HOMELESS
CHURCH GROUP TARGETED
BY CITY FOR FEEDING HOMELESS
NORTH CAROLINA CHURCH
KICKED OUT OF PARK
FOR FEEDING HOMELESS:
FLORIDA CHURCH STOPPED AS WELL:
NO FEEDING THE HOMELESS
IN HOUSTON, TEXAS:
ABORTION: LILA ROSE OF LIVE ACTION DEBATES ILYSE HOGUE PRESIDENT OF NARAL
DISNEY CARTOON PROGRAMS KIDS FOR THE SURVEILLANCE STATE~RFID BRACELET CONDITIONING OF KIDS
DISNEY WORLD RFID BRACELET
SHUTTERBUG SPY DRONE
Disney Cartoon Programs Kids
Published on Jan 23, 2014
It’s never too early to start conditioning kids to accept the coming surveillance-drone police state. Disney’s new cartoon hopes to make kids love constant drone surveillance because the snooper is just a cute little ladybug who only spies because she loves you. We reported in 2007 about these coming drone warfare insects and now we show you the USAF Micro-Air Vehicles set to deploy soon. But it’s not just Disney who’s propagating to the youth, The TSA released their own cartoon showing kids how to bow down to tyranny.
MICRO AIR VEHICLE
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT;
UNOBTRUSIVE, PERVASIVE, LETHAL:
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT;
UNOBTRUSIVE, PERVASIVE, LETHAL:
BARACK OBAMA LEGACY IS LAWLESSNESS~COMMUNIST HANOI JANE FONDA IS ROLE MODEL FOR MICHELLE
Michelle Bachmann: Obama’s Legacy Is
Published on Jan 22, 2014
COMMON CORE: KITTY WERTHMANN, AUSTRIAN WORLD WAR TWO SURVIVOR~U.S. BECOMING LIKE NAZI GERMANY
KITTY WERTHMANN:
http://EagleForumOfCalifornia.org Eagle Forum of California 2013 Conference
Kitty Werthmann is a WW2 survivor. She is 87 years old and is President of the South Dakota Eagle Forum. Werthmann lived under Nazi rule through the war, and strongly feels the need to warn Americans about the horrors of socialism. Werthmann said that Adolf Hitler spoke just like an American politician. She says: When the people fear the government, that’s tyranny, but when the government fears the people, that’s liberty! Citing Switzerland’s policy where citizens are required to own guns, Hitler did not attempt to invade the country and it has not been involved in a war for 600 years. Kitty advocates: ‘Keep your guns. Keep your guns, and buy more guns! and stock up on ammo because: “What good is a gun without ammunition?”
Kitty Werthmann is a WW2 survivor. She is 87 years old and is President of the South Dakota Eagle Forum. Werthmann lived under Nazi rule through the war, and strongly feels the need to warn Americans about the horrors of socialism. Werthmann said that Adolf Hitler spoke just like an American politician. She says: When the people fear the government, that’s tyranny, but when the government fears the people, that’s liberty! Citing Switzerland’s policy where citizens are required to own guns, Hitler did not attempt to invade the country and it has not been involved in a war for 600 years. Kitty advocates: ‘Keep your guns. Keep your guns, and buy more guns! and stock up on ammo because: “What good is a gun without ammunition?”
TSA PARODIES & REACTION
Airport Security Worried About Reporters,
But Not Muslim Brotherhood
State Department Silent on
VIP Treatment For Muslim Brotherhood:
Published on Jan 20, 2014
I received a call from a man named John on January 19 claiming to be from the TSA and had some questions for me. I asked him to call me back next day that I couldn’t hear him well. He agreed and within an hour or two I download an app so I can record phone calls. Today January 20th around 5:42pm while sitting outside he called back and I was able to record the whole thing. It was a strange call but very laughable. Sounds like one irritated TSA agent had enough of my video.
TWO OTHER PARODY VIDEOS:
MORE POLICE ABUSE & ARMING TO THE MAXIMUM WITH MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO MEET ANY CONTINGENCY
PEPPERBALL LAUNCHERS
TASER PISTOL
TASER SHOTGUN
LAWSUIT:
LA COPS TASED MAN’S GENITALS
UNTIL HE COULD
“SMELL HIS FLESH BURNING”
(Incident Occurred Over a Dropped Cigarette)
See:
Also see:
Utah Police Obtain Grenade Launchers,
Riot Gear From Feds:
http://www.infowars.com/utah-police-obtain-grenade-launchers-riot-gear-from-feds/
Riot Control: DHS Spends $500,000
on Fully Automatic Pepper Spray Launchers:
Homeland Security to purchase “riot expansion kits” & 240,000 pepper spray projectiles as agency prepares for domestic unrest.
See:
EXCERPTS:
“The PepperBall TAC-700 pepper spray launcher “features full auto, semi-auto, or 3 round burst providing up to 700 rounds per minute,”according to the company which will provide the DHS with the weapons. It is also “accurate to 60 feet with area saturation up to 150 feet.” The weapon is routinely used in riot control situations around the world.”
“The “riot expansion kits” being purchased by the DHS are holsters that accompany the PepperBall products and can be used to store projectiles. According to one website, they represent, “the perfect non-lethal crowd management tool for gaining compliance over rioters, organized protesters, and unlawful assemblies,” and can be used to, “Gain psychological advantage over unruly crowds.””
SEE: www.pepperball.com
Pepperball Police Training Video:
Pepperball TAC-700 Demo Video:
COMMON CORE: CRIMINAL ABUSIVE DATA MINING & PSYCHOLOGICAL MANIPULATION OF SCHOOLCHILDREN
What is the Problem with Common Core?
Dr. Karen Effrem is a pediatrician, researcher, and conference speaker. Dr. Effrem’s medical degree is from Johns Hopkins University and her pediatric training from the University of Minnesota. She has provided testimony for Congress, as well as in-depth analysis of numerous pieces of major federal education, health, and early childhood legislation for congressional staff, state legislatures, and many organizations. Dr. Effrem serves on the boards of two national organizations: Education Liberty Watch and the Alliance for Human Research Protection. She is a member of The International Society for Ethical Psychiatry and Psychology. She has spoken at numerous state and national conferences. She has been interviewed by Fox News and interviewed by or quoted in the Wall Street Journal, the British Medical Journal, National Journal, WorldNetDaily, NewsMax, Shark Tank, newspapers, radio and television stations across the country. Dr. Karen Effrem and her husband Paul, have three children.
SEE ALSO:
EXCERPTS:
“Under Common Core, Effrem said, students’ personal information increasingly is being collected, measured and assessed while the standards shift the focus away from academics and toward psychological training and testing of personal attitudes and behaviors.”
“Effrem said many Common Core standards and assessments will be used to collect data that go beyond academics to focus on student’s psychological attitudes, values and beliefs.”
Reprinted below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Karen R. Effrem, MD
President – Education Liberty Watch
The type and amount of personal, family, and non-academic data collected by the schools, reported in state longitudinal databases and used for research by the federal government was stimulated by the passage of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA) and has grown rapidly since then. Loss of student and family data privacy has been accelerated by the proliferation of education programs funded by the federal government, especially in the early childhood realm and including home visiting programs that collect a plethora of medical, psychological, and family data and the effort to integrate standards, programs and data literally from “cradle to career” through P-20W education program integration and state longitudinal databases that were part of the Head Start reauthorization of 2007 and required by the Race to the Top and Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge grant programs starting in 2009.
ESRA is up for reauthorization. That law allows the National Center for Education Statistics to collect data “by other offices within the Academy and by other Federal departments, agencies and instrumentalities.” and “enter into interagency agreements for the collection of statistics.” That data covers from preschool through the work life of every American citizen and includes “the social and economic status of children, including their academic achievement,” meaning every aspect of their lives and the lives of their families. This combined with the weakening of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) to be described below is a great danger to the privacy of American families and makes the data collection by the IRS and NSA look tame.
In addition, although ESRA makes an effort to prohibit a national database of individually identifiable student data in section 182 by saying, “Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the establishment of a nationwide database of individually identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this title;” that language appears to be negated by this language in Section 157:
“The Statistics Center may establish 1 or more national cooperative education statistics systems for the purpose of producing and maintaining, with the cooperation of the States, comparable and uniform information and data on early childhood education, elementary and secondary education, postsecondary education, adult education, and libraries, that are useful for policymaking at the Federal, State, and local levels.” (Emphasis added).
That language is even more worrisome in light of the grants to fund and promote state longitudinal databases in section 208 of ESRA, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and even more heavily promoted in the Race to the Top K-12 and Early Learning Challenge programs.
Both Head Start and Race to the Top heavily promoted national standards and the integration of those standards across the age spectrum. Both programs also heavily rely on standards and assessment and or screening in the mental health (psychological and socioemotional) realm
· According to the United States Department of Education (USED) document entitledPromoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century, the Common Core standards system will both teach and assess these “non-cognitive” (psychological) parameters:
o “In national policy, there is increasing attention on 21st-century competencies (which encompass a range of noncognitive factors, including grit), and persistence is now part of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.”
o [A]s new assessment systems are developed to reflect the new standards…attention will need to be given to the design of tasks and situations that call on students to apply a range of 21st century competencies…A sustained program of research and development will be required to create assessments that are capable of measuring cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal skills.
· According to the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge grant applications, several states are aligning their preschool standards and their K-12 standards, these standards teach psychological issues, which are then used for “screening” young children for mental health issues, even though the screening instruments are notoriously inaccurate. Here are some examples of the types of the very subjective and non-academic standards used:
o “Progresses in responding sympathetically to peers who are in need, upset, hurt, or angry, and in expressing empathy or caring for others.”
o “Develops ability to identify personal characteristics including gender and family composition”
o “Develops a growing awareness of jobs and what is required to perform them.”
The testing of psychological parameters in the national assessments is especially disturbing when it is understood that the national testing consortia signed an agreement with USED to submit individually identifiable student data to the federal government from the tests:
“Comply with and where applicable coordinate with the ED staff to fulfill the program requirements established in the RTTA Notice Inviting Applications and the conditions on the grant award, as well as to this agreement, including, but not limited to working with the Department to develop a strategy to make student – level data that results from the assessment system available on an ongoing basis for research, including for prospective linking, validity, and program improvement studies; subject to applicable privacy laws.” (Emphasis added)
The federal student privacy law, The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) has been so weakened in an effort to make sensitive student and family data from state longitudinal data systems that collects data from the Common Core assessments, including the psychological data cited above, available for research without consent to various agencies of the federal government, corporations and outside researchers, that the Electronic Privacy Information Center has sued USED in federal court, that case being heard on July 24, 2013.
· That lawsuit occurred in great part due to the major expansion of the longstanding definition of an authorized representative in the regulations that now allows other state and federal agencies to have access to individually identifiable student data.
· The list of entities with that access includes, “A contractor, consultant, volunteer, or other party to whom an agency or institution has outsourced institutional services or functions may be considered a school official”(Emphasis added)
With the understanding that federal involvement in education is unconstitutional, ineffective, harmful, and expensive, we make the following recommendations to deal with the situation as it currently exists:
1) The federal promotion of the teaching through standards, testing through federally funded and supervised national tests, and data collection of psychological parameters on children from preschool onward must cease and be prohibited immediately
2) The psychological screening of children in federal programs should also cease, especially for the preschool age group. At a minimum, there should be written, informed, opt-in parental consent similar to the language of the Parental Consent Act
3) Before ESRA is reauthorized, FERPA must be re-strengthened to truly protect student privacy which will hopefully be aided with the ruling in the ongoing federal lawsuit.
4) The amount and extent of data collected on innocent American children and their families in the name of education is a clear and serious violation of the Fourth Amendment and must also be curtailed if and as ESRA is reauthorized
5) All funding for Race to the Top in any form or any other grant program that promotes national standards, tests, and data collection should cease.
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
GOVERNOR CUOMO: NEW YORK NOT FOR CONSERVATIVE TYPES
Who’s “extreme,” Governor Cuomo?
EXCERPT: “Those like Gov. Cuomo who cling to the tyrannical ideology of the Left have no foundation based in truth, freedom or a love for America’s founding, so they lie and distort the truth of conservatism.”
If You Embrace Murder & Immorality,
MORE COMMON CORE RIGHTEOUS ANGER
Charlotte Iserbyt,
on Common Core Takeover:
Yvonne Gasperino Port Chester Forum:
Published on Oct 23, 2013
Listen to the guest speaker, Dr. Rella, superintendent of Comsewogue School District. He is in strong and publicly vocal opposition to the Common Core State Standards Initiative.
Published on Oct 23, 2013
Listen to Marla Kilfoyle, parent and teacher.
Published on Oct 23, 2013
Listen to the guest speaker, Yvonne Gasperino, founder of Stop the Common Core in NYS (http://stopccssinnys.com).
COMPARED: PROTESTANT HYMNS VS CONTEMPORARY MUSIC
David Cloud of Way of Life compares them here:
http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/using_old_protestant_hymns_vs_contemporary_worship.html, reprinted below, in full, unedited, for informational, educational, and research purposes:
Using Old Protestant Hymns
vs Using Contemporary Worship Songs
January 22, 2014 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org)
A pastor asked the following question:
The answer is that there is no comparison between these two practices.
Those who are making this argument don’t understand the issue and are uneducated about the character and nature of contemporary worship music and of the spiritual world that it represents.
To see the difference between using old Protestant hymns as opposed to borrowing from the world of contemporary worship, all we need to do is consider the fruit.
While I do not know of even one fundamental Baptist church that has become Lutheran by singing “A Mighty Fortress” or that has become Methodist by singing Fanny Crosby’s hymns, and I don’t know of one Baptist youth group that has become worldly by singing old Protestant hymns, I know a great many formerly separatist Baptist churches that are now New Evangelical, non-judgmental rock & rollers (including my alma mater, Tennessee Temple, and Highland Park Baptist Church in Chattanooga, Tennessee), and contemporary worship is ALWAYS in the midst of those great changes. We have documented this in the free eBook The Collapse of Biblical Separatism and in the report “Contemporary Music Brings Great Changes.”
As for youth groups, show me one that is messing with contemporary music, and I will show you one that is on a fast track to the world.
This fact speaks volumes to those who have an ear to hear.
The old Protestants were much closer, doctrinally and spiritually, to the position of an old-fashioned Baptist church than to that of the contemporary movement. The old Protestants were militant for the Christian faith and were not infiltrated by theological modernism and new philosophy. They hated Popery!
It has been argued that since Baptist churches use Protestant hymns, it is acceptable to use contemporary worship songs that are have a biblically sound message.
A pastor asked the following question:
“What is the difference from using songs that every denomination uses across the board from the past (‘Just as I Am,’ ‘Amazing Grace,’ etc.) to using songs that everyone uses across the board in the present (‘How Deep the Father’s Love for Us,’ ‘Holy Ground,’ ‘Majesty,’ etc.) if they follow Biblical principles and if we do not promote a particular artist whose lifestyle we don’t support?”
The answer is that there is no comparison between these two practices.
Those who are making this argument don’t understand the issue and are uneducated about the character and nature of contemporary worship music and of the spiritual world that it represents.
To see the difference between using old Protestant hymns as opposed to borrowing from the world of contemporary worship, all we need to do is consider the fruit.
While I do not know of even one fundamental Baptist church that has become Lutheran by singing “A Mighty Fortress” or that has become Methodist by singing Fanny Crosby’s hymns, and I don’t know of one Baptist youth group that has become worldly by singing old Protestant hymns, I know a great many formerly separatist Baptist churches that are now New Evangelical, non-judgmental rock & rollers (including my alma mater, Tennessee Temple, and Highland Park Baptist Church in Chattanooga, Tennessee), and contemporary worship is ALWAYS in the midst of those great changes. We have documented this in the free eBook The Collapse of Biblical Separatism and in the report “Contemporary Music Brings Great Changes.”
As for youth groups, show me one that is messing with contemporary music, and I will show you one that is on a fast track to the world.
This fact speaks volumes to those who have an ear to hear.
The old Protestants were much closer, doctrinally and spiritually, to the position of an old-fashioned Baptist church than to that of the contemporary movement. The old Protestants were militant for the Christian faith and were not infiltrated by theological modernism and new philosophy. They hated Popery!
In contrast, the contemporary worship crowd represents a philosophy and a movement of end-time apostasy that is diametrically opposed to an “old-fashioned” Bible stand. It represents a world that is an absolute enemy of what an “old-fashioned” Baptist church stands for.
There is a transformational power in contemporary worship that can and eventually always will change the very character of a Bible-believing separatist church.
This is because the contemporary worship crowd represents the one-world church. Almost to a man the influential contemporary worship artists are radical ecumenists who do not separate from the Roman Catholic Church as the old Protestants did, but who affiliate with Rome. We have documented this extensively in the free 500-page eBook The Directory of Contemporary Worship Musicians.
Consider the very popular Stuart Townend. He is charismatic in theology and radically ecumenical in philosophy, supporting the Alpha program which bridges charismatic, Protestant, and Roman Catholic churches. He wrote his popular song “How Deep the Father’s Love” as a bridge to draw “traditional” churches into the contemporary orb and associate them with the “broader church.”
Consider the very popular contemporary hymn writers, Keith and Kristyn Getty. Their songs are used used widely among “traditional, non-contemporary” churches, because they are considered relatively safe. At least eight of their songs are included in Majesty Music’s Rejoice Hymns. Twenty-nine of their songs are featured in Hymns Modern and Ancient, published by Heart Publications, a ministry of Steve Pettit Evangelistic Association and compiled by Fred Coleman who heads up Bob Jones University’s Department of Church Music. Both Crown Baptist College and West Coast Baptist College, the two largest independent Baptist Bible colleges, perform Getty material in their services. Yet the Getty’s one-world-church goal is to “bring everyone together musically” (www.keithgetty.com). In July 2012 the Gettys and their close friend Stuart Townend joined Roman Catholic Matt Maher on NewsongCafe on WorshipTogether.com. They played and discussed “The Power of the Cross,” which was co-written by Getty-Townend. The 10-minute program promoted ecumenical unity, with Maher/Townend/Getty entirely one in the spirit through the music. Dramatic doctrinal differences are so meaningless to this crowd that they are not even mentioned. Spiritual abominations such as papal supremacy, the mass, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and Mariolatry were entirely ignored. Jude 3 is despised and Romans 16:17 completely ignored for the sake of building the one-world church through contemporary Christian music.
Preachers who claim to believe in biblical separation and end-time apostasy and who claim that they want to keep their churches in the “fundamentalist” philosophy and orb, but who are playing with CCM, are playing with fire; and their people, and especially the next generation, are going to be burned.
These preachers can huff and puff at me all they want, and they can try to make me the issue in this battle, it doesn’t change the fact that they are playing with fire. It doesn’t change the dangerous character of contemporary worship music.
Time will tell, but that will be too late for those who do not draw clear lines of separation from contemporary worship today.
CONTEMPORARY MUSIC AND THE INTERNET
For documentation of the great spiritual danger represented by contemporary worship musicians that are being used by Bible-believing churches and the fact that this music is a bridge to the one-world church see the following free materials at www.wayoflife.org.
“The Transformational Power of Contemporary Praise Music” (free eVideo download)
http://www.wayoflife.org/free_evideo/
“The Foreign Spirit of Contemporary Praise Music” (free eVideo Download)
http://www.wayoflife.org/free_evideo/
“The Directory of Contemporary Worship Musicians” (free eBook)
http://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/
“Analyzing Adopted CCM Songs”
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/analyzing_adapted_ccm_songs.html_____
About Way of Life – The name “Way of Life” is from Proverbs 6:23: “For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life.” The biblical instruction that molds men to God’s will requires reproof. It is not strictly positive. It does not focus on man’s “self-esteem.” It does not avoid controversial or unpopular subjects. It warns as well as comforts. It deals with sin and false teaching in a plain manner. It is reproves, rebukes, exhorts with all longsuffering and doctrine (2 Tim. 4:2). This is what we seek to do through Way of Life Literature. The Way of Life preaching and publishing ministry based in Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario, of which Wilbert Unger is the founding Pastor. A mail stop is maintained in Port Huron, Michigan.
There is a transformational power in contemporary worship that can and eventually always will change the very character of a Bible-believing separatist church.
This is because the contemporary worship crowd represents the one-world church. Almost to a man the influential contemporary worship artists are radical ecumenists who do not separate from the Roman Catholic Church as the old Protestants did, but who affiliate with Rome. We have documented this extensively in the free 500-page eBook The Directory of Contemporary Worship Musicians.
Consider the very popular Stuart Townend. He is charismatic in theology and radically ecumenical in philosophy, supporting the Alpha program which bridges charismatic, Protestant, and Roman Catholic churches. He wrote his popular song “How Deep the Father’s Love” as a bridge to draw “traditional” churches into the contemporary orb and associate them with the “broader church.”
Consider the very popular contemporary hymn writers, Keith and Kristyn Getty. Their songs are used used widely among “traditional, non-contemporary” churches, because they are considered relatively safe. At least eight of their songs are included in Majesty Music’s Rejoice Hymns. Twenty-nine of their songs are featured in Hymns Modern and Ancient, published by Heart Publications, a ministry of Steve Pettit Evangelistic Association and compiled by Fred Coleman who heads up Bob Jones University’s Department of Church Music. Both Crown Baptist College and West Coast Baptist College, the two largest independent Baptist Bible colleges, perform Getty material in their services. Yet the Getty’s one-world-church goal is to “bring everyone together musically” (www.keithgetty.com). In July 2012 the Gettys and their close friend Stuart Townend joined Roman Catholic Matt Maher on NewsongCafe on WorshipTogether.com. They played and discussed “The Power of the Cross,” which was co-written by Getty-Townend. The 10-minute program promoted ecumenical unity, with Maher/Townend/Getty entirely one in the spirit through the music. Dramatic doctrinal differences are so meaningless to this crowd that they are not even mentioned. Spiritual abominations such as papal supremacy, the mass, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, and Mariolatry were entirely ignored. Jude 3 is despised and Romans 16:17 completely ignored for the sake of building the one-world church through contemporary Christian music.
Preachers who claim to believe in biblical separation and end-time apostasy and who claim that they want to keep their churches in the “fundamentalist” philosophy and orb, but who are playing with CCM, are playing with fire; and their people, and especially the next generation, are going to be burned.
These preachers can huff and puff at me all they want, and they can try to make me the issue in this battle, it doesn’t change the fact that they are playing with fire. It doesn’t change the dangerous character of contemporary worship music.
Time will tell, but that will be too late for those who do not draw clear lines of separation from contemporary worship today.
CONTEMPORARY MUSIC AND THE INTERNET
We are living in the age of end-time technology, which means that one can no longer use songs and hymns without the listeners being able to come into communication with the authors with great ease. Whereas even 30 years ago, it was difficult to contact and be influenced by authors of Christian music, that has changed dramatically with the Internet.
Today if people in a Bible-believing church hear songs by Jack Hayford or MercyMe or Graham Kendrick or Stuart Townend or Darlene Zschech or Keith Getty, songs heard in “adapted form” in many Bible-believing churches, they can easily search for that group or individual on the web and come into intimate contact with these people — not only in contact with their music (typically played in “real” rock & roll style as opposed to the watered-down soft-rock ballad versions performed in churches that are only beginning to dabble with contemporary praise music), but also in contact with their ecumenical/charismatic/separatist hating/one-world church philosophy.
Let’s say someone hears the choir perform “In Christ Alone” or “The Power of the Cross” by the Gettys. They like the music and decide to check them out on the web. They come across the Gettys rocking out at their concerts, and begin to question their church’s stand against rock music. They see the Gettys associating with anyone and everyone and begin to question biblical separation. “The Gettys seem so sincere and Christ-loving; maybe I’ve been too hard-nosed in my Christianity; maybe the separatist stance is all wrong; perhaps I should lighten up.” They come across Keith Getty’s July 2013 interview with Assist Ministries and decide to listen to what the man has to say. They hear Getty speak highly of Bono and C.S. Lewis, so they decide to take a look at these people, and by so doing they begin to question fundamental Bible doctrines. After time, through the influence of the Gettys, the soul who was once a content member of a Bible-believing church, raising his children in a Bible-believing path, is on the high road to the emerging church and the children and grandchildren will end up who knows where. The same could be said for the influence of Townend or Kendrick or MercyMe or Zschech or hundreds of other prominent contemporary worship musicians, because they hold the same philosophy and represent the same bridge to spiritual danger.
Men such as Paul Chappell and Clarence Sexton and Ron Hamilton, who should know better but who are defending the use of contemporary praise music either in word or by example, will answer to God for the souls that cross the bridges they are building to the dangerous world that is represented by this music.
Today if people in a Bible-believing church hear songs by Jack Hayford or MercyMe or Graham Kendrick or Stuart Townend or Darlene Zschech or Keith Getty, songs heard in “adapted form” in many Bible-believing churches, they can easily search for that group or individual on the web and come into intimate contact with these people — not only in contact with their music (typically played in “real” rock & roll style as opposed to the watered-down soft-rock ballad versions performed in churches that are only beginning to dabble with contemporary praise music), but also in contact with their ecumenical/charismatic/separatist hating/one-world church philosophy.
Let’s say someone hears the choir perform “In Christ Alone” or “The Power of the Cross” by the Gettys. They like the music and decide to check them out on the web. They come across the Gettys rocking out at their concerts, and begin to question their church’s stand against rock music. They see the Gettys associating with anyone and everyone and begin to question biblical separation. “The Gettys seem so sincere and Christ-loving; maybe I’ve been too hard-nosed in my Christianity; maybe the separatist stance is all wrong; perhaps I should lighten up.” They come across Keith Getty’s July 2013 interview with Assist Ministries and decide to listen to what the man has to say. They hear Getty speak highly of Bono and C.S. Lewis, so they decide to take a look at these people, and by so doing they begin to question fundamental Bible doctrines. After time, through the influence of the Gettys, the soul who was once a content member of a Bible-believing church, raising his children in a Bible-believing path, is on the high road to the emerging church and the children and grandchildren will end up who knows where. The same could be said for the influence of Townend or Kendrick or MercyMe or Zschech or hundreds of other prominent contemporary worship musicians, because they hold the same philosophy and represent the same bridge to spiritual danger.
Men such as Paul Chappell and Clarence Sexton and Ron Hamilton, who should know better but who are defending the use of contemporary praise music either in word or by example, will answer to God for the souls that cross the bridges they are building to the dangerous world that is represented by this music.
For documentation of the great spiritual danger represented by contemporary worship musicians that are being used by Bible-believing churches and the fact that this music is a bridge to the one-world church see the following free materials at www.wayoflife.org.
“The Transformational Power of Contemporary Praise Music” (free eVideo download)
http://www.wayoflife.org/free_evideo/
“The Foreign Spirit of Contemporary Praise Music” (free eVideo Download)
http://www.wayoflife.org/free_evideo/
“The Directory of Contemporary Worship Musicians” (free eBook)
http://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/
“Analyzing Adopted CCM Songs”
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/analyzing_adapted_ccm_songs.html_____
About Way of Life – The name “Way of Life” is from Proverbs 6:23: “For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life.” The biblical instruction that molds men to God’s will requires reproof. It is not strictly positive. It does not focus on man’s “self-esteem.” It does not avoid controversial or unpopular subjects. It warns as well as comforts. It deals with sin and false teaching in a plain manner. It is reproves, rebukes, exhorts with all longsuffering and doctrine (2 Tim. 4:2). This is what we seek to do through Way of Life Literature. The Way of Life preaching and publishing ministry based in Bethel Baptist Church, London, Ontario, of which Wilbert Unger is the founding Pastor. A mail stop is maintained in Port Huron, Michigan.
____________________________________________________
THE GREAT RIVER OF APOSTASY IN THE CHURCHES~PADDLING WITH THE FLOW, NOT AGAINST IT
THE GREAT RIVER OF APOSTASY
IN THE CHURCHES
Reprinted below, in full, unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
January 21, 2014 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143)
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
In our day evil reigns, apostasy is on the attack, compromise is in the very air we breathe.
We’re in this wicked world in these apostate times whether we like it or not, and we must overcome it or it will overcome us. And thank the Lord for His many promises that tell us we can overcome it.
End-time apostasy is like a great river sweeping everything along with it, and the Bible-believing New Testament church is like a boat. If we aren’t paddling hard upstream — through such things as conversion salvation, separated Christian discipleship, and uncompromising preaching — we are carried along with the flow.
There is no neutrality, no relaxing, no retiring. If you get tired of the work and put down the paddles of godly living and biblical reproof and separation, you immediately begin to move with the flow.
Over the past 20 years, many fundamental Baptist churches have stopped paddling. When it first happens, most of the members are happy. There are usually a few souls who are concerned about the change and they make everyone uncomfortable with their complaints, but since the pastor isn’t concerned and stresses that “nothing has changed,” everyone relaxes and the “old foggies” who still want to paddle upstream are warned not to have a “critical eye.” If they don’t settle down and enjoy going with the flow, they find that they are not welcome and they leave in search of some little boat somewhere that is still paddling up stream, and they take their “critical” publications like O Timothy with them.
With the “complainers” gone, the church can finally enjoy the new situation. It seems like a win-win deal. Instead of paddling for dear life and wasting all of that energy, they can relax and enjoy the scenery, and there is no longer a preacher yelling at them to paddle harder and to keep away from the dangerous shoals and the enticing side streams.
They get so happy that they feel like rockin’. They stop messing around with just “adapting” contemporary worship music. They roll out the rock band, tune up the bass, tighten the drum head, dial up the amp, trot out the worship team (making sure that at least one member is an attractive woman dressed as sensually as their pastor will allow), and let ‘er rip so they can “experience God” through some real worship.
Now they can enjoy life for a change instead of being bound by rules and restricted by separation. They notice that everywhere they look there are many other boats merrily moving with the flow. The crowd can’t be wrong. “Why, that’s Rick Warren’s big boat over there. Man, they are rockin’! And there’s Franklin Graham’s boat. Doesn’t he look happy! Why it’s hard to imagine that some of those old hard-paddling preachers used to warn about his dad. It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic and wrong.”
Finally the boaters find themselves a part of the majority and no longer the laughing stock of the entire boating class.
Then they notice a a lot of side streams, and they all look interesting, though the jungles lining their sides look dark and fearful; and for a moment — but surely it’s the imagination playing tricks — it appeared that there were monsters moving beneath the dark waters. No, our new pastor (the son or grandson of the founder) tells us that all those streams are fine and we have lots and lots of liberty. God loves all the streams.
There is the emerging stream and the contemplative stream and the Christian hedonism stream and the Church Fathers stream and the Reformed stream and the modern textual criticism stream and many others that they once saw as dangerous Now they can see for themselves that they are all fine Christian streams and a legitimate part of the “unity in diversity” that God wants His people to enjoy.
The thing that everyone keeps repeating is that life is so much more fun now that we don’t have to paddle upstream. It’s wonderful to finally be free to make your own choices and not be hemmed in by the rantings of some fanatical preacher.
They get so fired up by the rock band, so immersed in “worship,” so busy exploring all of the different streams, that they don’t notice that the river is flowing faster and the scenery is changing. There are rapids now and rocks and shoals.
They start feeling a bit uneasy, and someone suggests that perhaps they should start a bit of the old paddling routine again, but that is put off as Pharisaical. Someone remarks, “What, I guess the next thing you will suggest is that we have some hyper-legalist, preacher-wounding blogger like David Cloud in to speak!” Everyone has a hearty laugh.
Anyway, by now it’s too late. They are moving too fast. The river has them firm in its grip. There is no turning around. And then they hear something in the distance, a sort of roaring, and it is getting louder. And louder. And then they see it. The water is heaving and boiling as it is swept over the great fall.
They are helpless now, in the grip of something too powerful to resist. The time to turn around is past, and they shoot over the fall and crash on the rocks below.
Just before they go over, their cool pastor cries out, “But all we did was stop paddling!!!!”
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
They get so happy that they feel like rockin’. They stop messing around with just “adapting” contemporary worship music. They roll out the rock band, tune up the bass, tighten the drum head, dial up the amp, trot out the worship team (making sure that at least one member is an attractive woman dressed as sensually as their pastor will allow), and let ‘er rip so they can “experience God” through some real worship.
Now they can enjoy life for a change instead of being bound by rules and restricted by separation. They notice that everywhere they look there are many other boats merrily moving with the flow. The crowd can’t be wrong. “Why, that’s Rick Warren’s big boat over there. Man, they are rockin’! And there’s Franklin Graham’s boat. Doesn’t he look happy! Why it’s hard to imagine that some of those old hard-paddling preachers used to warn about his dad. It would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic and wrong.”
Finally the boaters find themselves a part of the majority and no longer the laughing stock of the entire boating class.
Then they notice a a lot of side streams, and they all look interesting, though the jungles lining their sides look dark and fearful; and for a moment — but surely it’s the imagination playing tricks — it appeared that there were monsters moving beneath the dark waters. No, our new pastor (the son or grandson of the founder) tells us that all those streams are fine and we have lots and lots of liberty. God loves all the streams.
There is the emerging stream and the contemplative stream and the Christian hedonism stream and the Church Fathers stream and the Reformed stream and the modern textual criticism stream and many others that they once saw as dangerous Now they can see for themselves that they are all fine Christian streams and a legitimate part of the “unity in diversity” that God wants His people to enjoy.
The thing that everyone keeps repeating is that life is so much more fun now that we don’t have to paddle upstream. It’s wonderful to finally be free to make your own choices and not be hemmed in by the rantings of some fanatical preacher.
They get so fired up by the rock band, so immersed in “worship,” so busy exploring all of the different streams, that they don’t notice that the river is flowing faster and the scenery is changing. There are rapids now and rocks and shoals.
They start feeling a bit uneasy, and someone suggests that perhaps they should start a bit of the old paddling routine again, but that is put off as Pharisaical. Someone remarks, “What, I guess the next thing you will suggest is that we have some hyper-legalist, preacher-wounding blogger like David Cloud in to speak!” Everyone has a hearty laugh.
Anyway, by now it’s too late. They are moving too fast. The river has them firm in its grip. There is no turning around. And then they hear something in the distance, a sort of roaring, and it is getting louder. And louder. And then they see it. The water is heaving and boiling as it is swept over the great fall.
They are helpless now, in the grip of something too powerful to resist. The time to turn around is past, and they shoot over the fall and crash on the rocks below.
Just before they go over, their cool pastor cries out, “But all we did was stop paddling!!!!”
“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).
“Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?” (1 Corinthians 5:6).“This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump” (Galatians 5:8-9).
_________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
LIAR-IN-CHIEF: “IF YOU LIKE YOUR PRIVACY, YOU CAN KEEP IT”
AMENDMENT IV
OF THE CONSTITUTION
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Obama’s NSA Speech:
You Have No Privacy in Your Data
EXCERPT:
“President Obama delivered a wordy and categorical defense of NSA warrantless snooping on Americans’ data privacy January 17 in a speech at the Justice Department, reiterating the longtime executive branch view that Americans have no reasonable expectation of privacy in any electronic transaction.”
ALSO SEE:
EXCERPT:
And Wired magazine, in an article in March by NSA expert James Bamford, reported on the NSA’s new center in Utah: “Stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails — parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital ‘pocket litter.’ ”
SENATOR RON WYDEN INTERVIEWS DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, JAMES CLAPPER:
on
GPS Surveillance &
National Security Agency Collection
Remarks by the President on Review of Signals Intelligence
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
11:15 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: At the dawn of our Republic, a small, secret surveillance committee borne out of the “The Sons of Liberty” was established in Boston. And the group’s members included Paul Revere. At night, they would patrol the streets, reporting back any signs that the British were preparing raids against America’s early Patriots.
Throughout American history, intelligence has helped secure our country and our freedoms. In the Civil War, Union balloon reconnaissance tracked the size of Confederate armies by counting the number of campfires. In World War II, code-breakers gave us insights into Japanese war plans, and when Patton marched across Europe, intercepted communications helped save the lives of his troops. After the war, the rise of the Iron Curtain and nuclear weapons only increased the need for sustained intelligence gathering. And so, in the early days of the Cold War, President Truman created the National Security Agency, or NSA, to give us insights into the Soviet bloc, and provide our leaders with information they needed to confront aggression and avert catastrophe.
Throughout this evolution, we benefited from both our Constitution and our traditions of limited government. U.S. intelligence agencies were anchored in a system of checks and balances — with oversight from elected leaders, and protections for ordinary citizens. Meanwhile, totalitarian states like East Germany offered a cautionary tale of what could happen when vast, unchecked surveillance turned citizens into informers, and persecuted people for what they said in the privacy of their own homes.
In fact, even the United States proved not to be immune to the abuse of surveillance. And in the 1960s, government spied on civil rights leaders and critics of the Vietnam War. And partly in response to these revelations, additional laws were established in the 1970s to ensure that our intelligence capabilities could not be misused against our citizens. In the long, twilight struggle against Communism, we had been reminded that the very liberties that we sought to preserve could not be sacrificed at the altar of national security.
If the fall of the Soviet Union left America without a competing superpower, emerging threats from terrorist groups, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction placed new and in some ways more complicated demands on our intelligence agencies. Globalization and the Internet made these threats more acute, as technology erased borders and empowered individuals to project great violence, as well as great good. Moreover, these new threats raised new legal and new policy questions. For while few doubted the legitimacy of spying on hostile states, our framework of laws was not fully adapted to prevent terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own, or acting in small, ideologically driven groups on behalf of a foreign power.
The horror of September 11th brought all these issues to the fore. Across the political spectrum, Americans recognized that we had to adapt to a world in which a bomb could be built in a basement, and our electric grid could be shut down by operators an ocean away. We were shaken by the signs we had missed leading up to the attacks — how the hijackers had made phone calls to known extremists and traveled to suspicious places. So we demanded that our intelligence community improve its capabilities, and that law enforcement change practices to focus more on preventing attacks before they happen than prosecuting terrorists after an attack.
It is hard to overstate the transformation America’s intelligence community had to go through after 9/11. Our agencies suddenly needed to do far more than the traditional mission of monitoring hostile powers and gathering information for policymakers. Instead, they were now asked to identify and target plotters in some of the most remote parts of the world, and to anticipate the actions of networks that, by their very nature, cannot be easily penetrated with spies or informants.
And it is a testimony to the hard work and dedication of the men and women of our intelligence community that over the past decade we’ve made enormous strides in fulfilling this mission. Today, new capabilities allow intelligence agencies to track who a terrorist is in contact with, and follow the trail of his travel or his funding. New laws allow information to be collected and shared more quickly and effectively between federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement. Relationships with foreign intelligence services have expanded, and our capacity to repel cyber-attacks have been strengthened. And taken together, these efforts have prevented multiple attacks and saved innocent lives — not just here in the United States, but around the globe.
And yet, in our rush to respond to a very real and novel set of threats, the risk of government overreach — the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security — also became more pronounced. We saw, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, our government engaged in enhanced interrogation techniques that contradicted our values. As a Senator, I was critical of several practices, such as warrantless wiretaps. And all too often new authorities were instituted without adequate public debate.
Through a combination of action by the courts, increased congressional oversight, and adjustments by the previous administration, some of the worst excesses that emerged after 9/11 were curbed by the time I took office. But a variety of factors have continued to complicate America’s efforts to both defend our nation and uphold our civil liberties.
First, the same technological advances that allow U.S. intelligence agencies to pinpoint an al Qaeda cell in Yemen or an email between two terrorists in the Sahel also mean that many routine communications around the world are within our reach. And at a time when more and more of our lives are digital, that prospect is disquieting for all of us.
Second, the combination of increased digital information and powerful supercomputers offers intelligence agencies the possibility of sifting through massive amounts of bulk data to identify patterns or pursue leads that may thwart impending threats. It’s a powerful tool. But the government collection and storage of such bulk data also creates a potential for abuse.
Third, the legal safeguards that restrict surveillance against U.S. persons without a warrant do not apply to foreign persons overseas. This is not unique to America; few, if any, spy agencies around the world constrain their activities beyond their own borders. And the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publicly available. But America’s capabilities are unique, and the power of new technologies means that there are fewer and fewer technical constraints on what we can do. That places a special obligation on us to ask tough questions about what we should do.
And finally, intelligence agencies cannot function without secrecy, which makes their work less subject to public debate. Yet there is an inevitable bias not only within the intelligence community, but among all of us who are responsible for national security, to collect more information about the world, not less. So in the absence of institutional requirements for regular debate — and oversight that is public, as well as private or classified — the danger of government overreach becomes more acute. And this is particularly true when surveillance technology and our reliance on digital information is evolving much faster than our laws.
For all these reasons, I maintained a healthy skepticism toward our surveillance programs after I became President. I ordered that our programs be reviewed by my national security team and our lawyers, and in some cases I ordered changes in how we did business. We increased oversight and auditing, including new structures aimed at compliance. Improved rules were proposed by the government and approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. And we sought to keep Congress continually updated on these activities.
What I did not do is stop these programs wholesale — not only because I felt that they made us more secure, but also because nothing in that initial review, and nothing that I have learned since, indicated that our intelligence community has sought to violate the law or is cavalier about the civil liberties of their fellow citizens.
To the contrary, in an extraordinarily difficult job — one in which actions are second-guessed, success is unreported, and failure can be catastrophic — the men and women of the intelligence community, including the NSA, consistently follow protocols designed to protect the privacy of ordinary people. They’re not abusing authorities in order to listen to your private phone calls or read your emails. When mistakes are made — which is inevitable in any large and complicated human enterprise — they correct those mistakes. Laboring in obscurity, often unable to discuss their work even with family and friends, the men and women at the NSA know that if another 9/11 or massive cyber-attack occurs, they will be asked, by Congress and the media, why they failed to connect the dots. What sustains those who work at NSA and our other intelligence agencies through all these pressures is the knowledge that their professionalism and dedication play a central role in the defense of our nation.
Now, to say that our intelligence community follows the law, and is staffed by patriots, is not to suggest that I or others in my administration felt complacent about the potential impact of these programs. Those of us who hold office in America have a responsibility to our Constitution, and while I was confident in the integrity of those who lead our intelligence community, it was clear to me in observing our intelligence operations on a regular basis that changes in our technological capabilities were raising new questions about the privacy safeguards currently in place.
Moreover, after an extended review of our use of drones in the fight against terrorist networks, I believed a fresh examination of our surveillance programs was a necessary next step in our effort to get off the open-ended war footing that we’ve maintained since 9/11. And for these reasons, I indicated in a speech at the National Defense University last May that we needed a more robust public discussion about the balance between security and liberty. Of course, what I did not know at the time is that within weeks of my speech, an avalanche of unauthorized disclosures would spark controversies at home and abroad that have continued to this day.
And given the fact of an open investigation, I’m not going to dwell on Mr. Snowden’s actions or his motivations; I will say that our nation’s defense depends in part on the fidelity of those entrusted with our nation’s secrets. If any individual who objects to government policy can take it into their own hands to publicly disclose classified information, then we will not be able to keep our people safe, or conduct foreign policy. Moreover, the sensational way in which these disclosures have come out has often shed more heat than light, while revealing methods to our adversaries that could impact our operations in ways that we may not fully understand for years to come.
Regardless of how we got here, though, the task before us now is greater than simply repairing the damage done to our operations or preventing more disclosures from taking place in the future. Instead, we have to make some important decisions about how to protect ourselves and sustain our leadership in the world, while upholding the civil liberties and privacy protections that our ideals and our Constitution require. We need to do so not only because it is right, but because the challenges posed by threats like terrorism and proliferation and cyber-attacks are not going away any time soon. They are going to continue to be a major problem. And for our intelligence community to be effective over the long haul, we must maintain the trust of the American people, and people around the world.
This effort will not be completed overnight, and given the pace of technological change, we shouldn’t expect this to be the last time America has this debate. But I want the American people to know that the work has begun. Over the last six months, I created an outside Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies to make recommendations for reform. I consulted with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, created by Congress. I’ve listened to foreign partners, privacy advocates, and industry leaders. My administration has spent countless hours considering how to approach intelligence in this era of diffuse threats and technological revolution. So before outlining specific changes that I’ve ordered, let me make a few broad observations that have emerged from this process.
First, everyone who has looked at these problems, including skeptics of existing programs, recognizes that we have real enemies and threats, and that intelligence serves a vital role in confronting them. We cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications — whether it’s to unravel a terrorist plot; to intercept malware that targets a stock exchange; to make sure air traffic control systems are not compromised; or to ensure that hackers do not empty your bank accounts. We are expected to protect the American people; that requires us to have capabilities in this field.
Moreover, we cannot unilaterally disarm our intelligence agencies. There is a reason why BlackBerrys and iPhones are not allowed in the White House Situation Room. We know that the intelligence services of other countries — including some who feign surprise over the Snowden disclosures — are constantly probing our government and private sector networks, and accelerating programs to listen to our conversations, and intercept our emails, and compromise our systems. We know that.
Meanwhile, a number of countries, including some who have loudly criticized the NSA, privately acknowledge that America has special responsibilities as the world’s only superpower; that our intelligence capabilities are critical to meeting these responsibilities, and that they themselves have relied on the information we obtain to protect their own people.
Second, just as ardent civil libertarians recognize the need for robust intelligence capabilities, those with responsibilities for our national security readily acknowledge the potential for abuse as intelligence capabilities advance and more and more private information is digitized. After all, the folks at NSA and other intelligence agencies are our neighbors. They’re our friends and family. They’ve got electronic bank and medical records like everybody else. They have kids on Facebook and Instagram, and they know, more than most of us, the vulnerabilities to privacy that exist in a world where transactions are recorded, and emails and text and messages are stored, and even our movements can increasingly be tracked through the GPS on our phones.
Third, there was a recognition by all who participated in these reviews that the challenges to our privacy do not come from government alone. Corporations of all shapes and sizes track what you buy, store and analyze our data, and use it for commercial purposes; that’s how those targeted ads pop up on your computer and your smartphone periodically. But all of us understand that the standards for government surveillance must be higher. Given the unique power of the state, it is not enough for leaders to say: Trust us, we won’t abuse the data we collect. For history has too many examples when that trust has been breached. Our system of government is built on the premise that our liberty cannot depend on the good intentions of those in power; it depends on the law to constrain those in power.
I make these observations to underscore that the basic values of most Americans when it comes to questions of surveillance and privacy converge a lot more than the crude characterizations that have emerged over the last several months. Those who are troubled by our existing programs are not interested in repeating the tragedy of 9/11, and those who defend these programs are not dismissive of civil liberties.
The challenge is getting the details right, and that is not simple. In fact, during the course of our review, I have often reminded myself I would not be where I am today were it not for the courage of dissidents like Dr. King, who were spied upon by their own government. And as President, a President who looks at intelligence every morning, I also can’t help but be reminded that America must be vigilant in the face of threats.
Fortunately, by focusing on facts and specifics rather than speculation and hypotheticals, this review process has given me — and hopefully the American people — some clear direction for change. And today, I can announce a series of concrete and substantial reforms that my administration intends to adopt administratively or will seek to codify with Congress.
First, I have approved a new presidential directive for our signals intelligence activities both at home and abroad. This guidance will strengthen executive branch oversight of our intelligence activities. It will ensure that we take into account our security requirements, but also our alliances; our trade and investment relationships, including the concerns of American companies; and our commitment to privacy and basic liberties. And we will review decisions about intelligence priorities and sensitive targets on an annual basis so that our actions are regularly scrutinized by my senior national security team.
Second, we will reform programs and procedures in place to provide greater transparency to our surveillance activities, and fortify the safeguards that protect the privacy of U.S. persons. Since we began this review, including information being released today, we have declassified over 40 opinions and orders of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which provides judicial review of some of our most sensitive intelligence activities — including the Section 702 program targeting foreign individuals overseas, and the Section 215 telephone metadata program.
And going forward, I’m directing the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Attorney General, to annually review for the purposes of declassification any future opinions of the court with broad privacy implications, and to report to me and to Congress on these efforts. To ensure that the court hears a broader range of privacy perspectives, I am also calling on Congress to authorize the establishment of a panel of advocates from outside government to provide an independent voice in significant cases before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Third, we will provide additional protections for activities conducted under Section 702, which allows the government to intercept the communications of foreign targets overseas who have information that’s important for our national security. Specifically, I am asking the Attorney General and DNI to institute reforms that place additional restrictions on government’s ability to retain, search, and use in criminal cases communications between Americans and foreign citizens incidentally collected under Section 702.
Fourth, in investigating threats, the FBI also relies on what’s called national security letters, which can require companies to provide specific and limited information to the government without disclosing the orders to the subject of the investigation. These are cases in which it’s important that the subject of the investigation, such as a possible terrorist or spy, isn’t tipped off. But we can and should be more transparent in how government uses this authority.
I have therefore directed the Attorney General to amend how we use national security letters so that this secrecy will not be indefinite, so that it will terminate within a fixed time unless the government demonstrates a real need for further secrecy. We will also enable communications providers to make public more information than ever before about the orders that they have received to provide data to the government.
This brings me to the program that has generated the most controversy these past few months — the bulk collection of telephone records under Section 215. Let me repeat what I said when this story first broke: This program does not involve the content of phone calls, or the names of people making calls. Instead, it provides a record of phone numbers and the times and lengths of calls — metadata that can be queried if and when we have a reasonable suspicion that a particular number is linked to a terrorist organization.
Why is this necessary? The program grew out of a desire to address a gap identified after 9/11. One of the 9/11 hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar — made a phone call from San Diego to a known al Qaeda safe-house in Yemen. NSA saw that call, but it could not see that the call was coming from an individual already in the United States. The telephone metadata program under Section 215 was designed to map the communications of terrorists so we can see who they may be in contact with as quickly as possible. And this capability could also prove valuable in a crisis. For example, if a bomb goes off in one of our cities and law enforcement is racing to determine whether a network is poised to conduct additional attacks, time is of the essence. Being able to quickly review phone connections to assess whether a network exists is critical to that effort.
In sum, the program does not involve the NSA examining the phone records of ordinary Americans. Rather, it consolidates these records into a database that the government can query if it has a specific lead — a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retained for business purposes. The review group turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused. And I believe it is important that the capability that this program is designed to meet is preserved.
Having said that, I believe critics are right to point out that without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives, and open the door to more intrusive bulk collection programs in the future. They’re also right to point out that although the telephone bulk collection program was subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and has been reauthorized repeatedly by Congress, it has never been subject to vigorous public debate.
For all these reasons, I believe we need a new approach. I am therefore ordering a transition that will end the Section 215 bulk metadata program as it currently exists, and establish a mechanism that preserves the capabilities we need without the government holding this bulk metadata.
This will not be simple. The review group recommended that our current approach be replaced by one in which the providers or a third party retain the bulk records, with government accessing information as needed. Both of these options pose difficult problems. Relying solely on the records of multiple providers, for example, could require companies to alter their procedures in ways that raise new privacy concerns. On the other hand, any third party maintaining a single, consolidated database would be carrying out what is essentially a government function but with more expense, more legal ambiguity, potentially less accountability — all of which would have a doubtful impact on increasing public confidence that their privacy is being protected.
During the review process, some suggested that we may also be able to preserve the capabilities we need through a combination of existing authorities, better information sharing, and recent technological advances. But more work needs to be done to determine exactly how this system might work.
Because of the challenges involved, I’ve ordered that the transition away from the existing program will proceed in two steps. Effective immediately, we will only pursue phone calls that are two steps removed from a number associated with a terrorist organization instead of the current three. And I have directed the Attorney General to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding or in the case of a true emergency.
Next, step two, I have instructed the intelligence community and the Attorney General to use this transition period to develop options for a new approach that can match the capabilities and fill the gaps that the Section 215 program was designed to address without the government holding this metadata itself. They will report back to me with options for alternative approaches before the program comes up for reauthorization on March 28th. And during this period, I will consult with the relevant committees in Congress to seek their views, and then seek congressional authorization for the new program as needed.
Now, the reforms I’m proposing today should give the American people greater confidence that their rights are being protected, even as our intelligence and law enforcement agencies maintain the tools they need to keep us safe. And I recognize that there are additional issues that require further debate. For example, some who participated in our review, as well as some members of Congress, would like to see more sweeping reforms to the use of national security letters so that we have to go to a judge each time before issuing these requests. Here, I have concerns that we should not set a standard for terrorism investigations that is higher than those involved in investigating an ordinary crime. But I agree that greater oversight on the use of these letters may be appropriate, and I’m prepared to work with Congress on this issue.
There are also those who would like to see different changes to the FISA Court than the ones I’ve proposed. On all these issues, I am open to working with Congress to ensure that we build a broad consensus for how to move forward, and I’m confident that we can shape an approach that meets our security needs while upholding the civil liberties of every American.
Let me now turn to the separate set of concerns that have been raised overseas, and focus on America’s approach to intelligence collection abroad. As I’ve indicated, the United States has unique responsibilities when it comes to intelligence collection. Our capabilities help protect not only our nation, but our friends and our allies, as well. But our efforts will only be effective if ordinary citizens in other countries have confidence that the United States respects their privacy, too. And the leaders of our close friends and allies deserve to know that if I want to know what they think about an issue, I’ll pick up the phone and call them, rather than turning to surveillance. In other words, just as we balance security and privacy at home, our global leadership demands that we balance our security requirements against our need to maintain the trust and cooperation among people and leaders around the world.
For that reason, the new presidential directive that I’ve issued today will clearly prescribe what we do, and do not do, when it comes to our overseas surveillance. To begin with, the directive makes clear that the United States only uses signals intelligence for legitimate national security purposes, and not for the purpose of indiscriminately reviewing the emails or phone calls of ordinary folks. I’ve also made it clear that the United States does not collect intelligence to suppress criticism or dissent, nor do we collect intelligence to disadvantage people on the basis of their ethnicity, or race, or gender, or sexual orientation, or religious beliefs. We do not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to U.S. companies or U.S. commercial sectors.
And in terms of our bulk collection of signals intelligence, U.S. intelligence agencies will only use such data to meet specific security requirements: counterintelligence, counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, cybersecurity, force protection for our troops and our allies, and combating transnational crime, including sanctions evasion.
In this directive, I have taken the unprecedented step of extending certain protections that we have for the American people to people overseas. I’ve directed the DNI, in consultation with the Attorney General, to develop these safeguards, which will limit the duration that we can hold personal information, while also restricting the use of this information.
The bottom line is that people around the world, regardless of their nationality, should know that the United States is not spying on ordinary people who don’t threaten our national security, and that we take their privacy concerns into account in our policies and procedures. This applies to foreign leaders as well. Given the understandable attention that this issue has received, I have made clear to the intelligence community that unless there is a compelling national security purpose, we will not monitor the communications of heads of state and government of our close friends and allies. And I’ve instructed my national security team, as well as the intelligence community, to work with foreign counterparts to deepen our coordination and cooperation in ways that rebuild trust going forward.
Now let me be clear: Our intelligence agencies will continue to gather information about the intentions of governments — as opposed to ordinary citizens — around the world, in the same way that the intelligence services of every other nation does. We will not apologize simply because our services may be more effective. But heads of state and government with whom we work closely, and on whose cooperation we depend, should feel confident that we are treating them as real partners. And the changes I’ve ordered do just that.
Finally, to make sure that we follow through on all these reforms, I am making some important changes to how our government is organized. The State Department will designate a senior officer to coordinate our diplomacy on issues related to technology and signals intelligence. We will appoint a senior official at the White House to implement the new privacy safeguards that I have announced today. I will devote the resources to centralize and improve the process we use to handle foreign requests for legal assistance, keeping our high standards for privacy while helping foreign partners fight crime and terrorism.
I have also asked my counselor, John Podesta, to lead a comprehensive review of big data and privacy. And this group will consist of government officials who, along with the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, will reach out to privacy experts, technologists and business leaders, and look how the challenges inherent in big data are being confronted by both the public and private sectors; whether we can forge international norms on how to manage this data; and how we can continue to promote the free flow of information in ways that are consistent with both privacy and security.
For ultimately, what’s at stake in this debate goes far beyond a few months of headlines, or passing tensions in our foreign policy. When you cut through the noise, what’s really at stake is how we remain true to who we are in a world that is remaking itself at dizzying speed. Whether it’s the ability of individuals to communicate ideas; to access information that would have once filled every great library in every country in the world; or to forge bonds with people on other sides of the globe, technology is remaking what is possible for individuals, and for institutions, and for the international order. So while the reforms that I have announced will point us in a new direction, I am mindful that more work will be needed in the future.
One thing I’m certain of: This debate will make us stronger. And I also know that in this time of change, the United States of America will have to lead. It may seem sometimes that America is being held to a different standard. And I’ll admit the readiness of some to assume the worst motives by our government can be frustrating. No one expects China to have an open debate about their surveillance programs, or Russia to take privacy concerns of citizens in other places into account. But let’s remember: We are held to a different standard precisely because we have been at the forefront of defending personal privacy and human dignity.
As the nation that developed the Internet, the world expects us to ensure that the digital revolution works as a tool for individual empowerment, not government control. Having faced down the dangers of totalitarianism and fascism and communism, the world expects us to stand up for the principle that every person has the right to think and write and form relationships freely — because individual freedom is the wellspring of human progress.
Those values make us who we are. And because of the strength of our own democracy, we should not shy away from high expectations. For more than two centuries, our Constitution has weathered every type of change because we have been willing to defend it, and because we have been willing to question the actions that have been taken in its defense. Today is no different. I believe we can meet high expectations. Together, let us chart a way forward that secures the life of our nation while preserving the liberties that make our nation worth fighting for.
Thank you. God bless you. May God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
______________________________________________________________
BISEXUAL KATY PERRY’S DESCENT INTO DARKNESS: GOSPEL SINGER TO APOSTATE TO ATHEIST TO SATANIC WITCHCRAFT
Descent Into Darkness:
Katy Perry Renounces The Christian Faith
SEE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katy_Perry
Brother: David Daniel Hudson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_(singer)
Brother: David Daniel Hudson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_(singer)
See:
http://beginningandend.com/descent-into-darkness-katy-perry-renounces-the-christian-faith/
Reprinted below, in full, unedited, for informational, educational, and research purposes:
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and [money].- Jesus Christ, Matthew 6:24.”
Pop Mega-Star Katy Perry recently made waves in the Christian media when she announced that she is not a Christian and is an adherent to the New Age Movement. While there may be shock and sadness over this announcement,Beginning and End has chronicled the blatant sinful rebellion that has been a part of Perry’s music and videos for years. Her announcement is yet another sign of pop culture’s open movement away from God and the promotion of anything to do with the Christian faith.
Perry has left behind her born-again past and finds spirituality through the writing of Eckhart Tolle (The Power of Now influenced the song “This Moment”); practicing Transcendental Meditation (“the best thing I got out of my previous relationship, because it was introduced to me via my ex-husband”); and therapy. “I don’t believe in a heaven or a hell or an old man sitting on a throne. I believe in a higher power bigger than me because that keeps me accountable. Accountability is rare to find, especially with people like myself, because nobody wants to tell you something you don’t want to hear. I actually don’t trust people who start to turn on me because they get scared of telling me the truth. I’m not Buddhist, I’m not Hindu, I’m not Christian, but I still feel like I have a deep connection with God. I pray all the time—for self-control, for humility. There’s a lot of gratitude in it. Just saying ‘thank you’ sometimes is better than asking for things.” – Katy Perry interview in Marie Claire Magazine.
Perry started her career as a Contemporary Christian Music or CCM singer. When she did not achieve the financial success she envisioned for herself, she turned to pop music. Her first big smash single “I Kissed A Girl” was a celebration of lesbian exploration. The song, which led her to first multi-platinum album, launched Perry into superstardom and gave her legions of young adoring female fans who were captivated by her powerful voice and style. And thus the decision to sacrifice the faith in God and Christian values was made and Perry’s hit single became an anthem for girls to consider the fun and “coolness” of sinful rebellion against The Lord.
In the video below, Perry describes it herself:
As the verses above indicate, it is impossible to make fame and wealth the ultimate goal in one’s life and to serve God. 1 Timothy 6:10 says: “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” Scripture is clear that Satan can bestow Earthly riches on those who choose to follow him. When Jesus Christ was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness, the Bible explains this:
And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. – Luke 4:5-8.
The offer to the Messiah was not an idle one. Satan was literally offering Jesus Christ the kingdoms of the world, of which Satan has temporary authority over, as God allows [B&E: this is shown in greater detail in Chapter 1 of the Book of Jobfor those who want more information on this topic]. Quoting the Bible back to the Adversary, Jesus Christ resisted the Devil’s temptation and rightly proclaimed that only God in Heaven should be worshiped. Yet 2,000 years later, Satan still extends that offer to many people. And while it may not be in a face-to-face conversation as it was with Jesus Christ, it comes in the form of executives offering million-dollar contracts and a lavish celebrity lifestyle in exchange for influencing the world away from God and into sin.
Since the time of her first single, Perry has gone on to become one of the most successful singers of all time. All the while she became famous for her oversexed image. Wearing skimpy outfits, appearing nude in music videos and enticing lust in the eyes of her fans have become a Perry trademark. In her song, “E.T.” she sings about sexual relations with an alien, who could possibly be “the Devil.” (We covered this song in detail in our article Katy Perry’s “E.T.” Song And Video – Alien Deception Strikes Again). So from very early in her pop career, the abandoning of the Christian faith was apparent.
A Child Of The Devil?
Like many artists who openly oppose God, Perry has used
occult imagery in her songs and videos.
In our article Katy Perry’s Dad: “Katy Is A Child Of The Devil”, Beginning and Enddetailed the UK Sun’s story about a sermon in which Katy Perry’s dad, Keith Hudson, referred to his superstar daughter as “a child of the devil.” Both of Perry’s parents are pastors and believers in Charismatic Christianity, which involves a host of unbiblical practices. But her father’s apparent regrets over Perry’s career choices were obvious:
“I was at a concert of Katy’s where there were 20,000. I’m watching this generation, and they were going at it. It was almost like church,” Keith said. “I stood there and wept and kept on weeping and weeping. They’re loving and worshipping the wrong thing.” (source).
And this is what the world wants. To take what was once for God and turn into something of the world. Perry’s descent into rebellion has not stopped her pastor mother from supporting her. Her mother serves as her manager and travels with Perry on tour. So rather than rebuking their daughter with Godly instruction as the Bible commands, Perry’s mother has joined in on the multi-million dollar enterprise that is her pop star daughter. And this compromise in the faith always opens the door for the enemy to infiltrate.
Katy Perry’s album, using her real name, when she was a Christian artist.
So did Perry “lose her salvation”? How does this dangerous transition take place? Jesus Christ, in one of his parables describes Christians who follow the same spiritual road Perry has. In the parable Jesus describes a sower- a farmer who is planting seeds on different surfaces.
Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable… And he said unto them… The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word’s sake, immediately they are offended. And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred. – Mark 4:1-20.
As Jesus explained, the seeds in the parable were a metaphor for The Word of God or the Bible. And the different surfaces were the different types of responses people can have to hearing the Gospel message. For many, Satan uses whatever temptation necessary to let them no longer care about the Christian faith. Sometimes it can be persecution. Or a difficult experience. Or it can be the lure of riches and worldly desires. All these things can make someone who claims to be a Christian soon renounce their faith. But since they never truly had a strong “root” or foundation, they never truly received Jesus in their hearts to begin with.
To no surprise, Perry has now turned to the New Age movement. She cited Eckhart Tolle as in inspiration for one her songs. Tolle, a New Age movement guru, is the author of books such as “A New Earth” and “The Power of Now” which teach a message that each individual person has godhood within them. And through various mystical practices, this divine spark can be released. Thus there is no need for the God of the Bible, Jesus Christ, salvation or forgiveness of sin. Heaven and Hell are also non-existent and the idea of believing in a God should be abandoned.
At the 2:00 mark in the video below, Oprah Winfrey one of the greatest promoters of New Age doctrine in the world, interviews Tolle on his spiritual message. In his responses and her explanation of his writings, it is clear that much, if not all of it runs contrary to Biblical Christianity.
Perry also claimed to be a practitioner of transcendental meditation, also a New Age practice which involves reciting a mantra, or single phrase, repeatedly, in order to achieve greater spiritual consciousness. When Jesus Christ taught His disciples how to pray, he specific reference to this practice: “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” (Matthew 6:7).
The spiritual descent from The Lord will always lead to occult spiritual practices. And Perry gave even more confirmation of this with the new artwork for her new single Dark Horse:
— Katy Perry (@katyperry) January 10, 2014
Note the All-Seeing Eye at the top of the image. The All-Seeing Eye of Horus, also known as the All-Seeing Eye of Lucifer. Christian news site Cutting Edge writes:
“The Blazing Star (Pentagram) has been regarded as an emblem of Omniscience, or the All-Seeing Eye, which to the Egyptian Initiates was the emblem of Osiris, the Creator.” [Pike, “Morals and Dogma“, p. 26-16]Therefore, the All-Seeing Eye is the symbol of the Omniscience of the Sun God, Lucifer, whom they worship. These All-Seeing Eyes represents the Omniscience of Horus, who is Lucifer in the Egyptian Satanic Mysteries. Masonic author, Carl Claudy writes: “This is one of the oldest and most widespread symbols denoting God. We find it in Egypt, in India … The Open Eye of Egypt represented Osiris. In India, Siva is represented by an eye.” [Carl Claudy, “Introduction To Freemasonry: Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft, and Master mason Complete In One Volume“, The Temple Publishers, 1931, p. 148, quoted by Dr. Cathy Burns, “Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated“, p. 357] (source).
You Can Always Return To Christ
Katy Perry here with her good friend Rihanna, one of the biggest
promoters of the occult in music today.
From her own statements, it’s clear that Katy Perry received the seeds of the Gospel. But the message of the salvation in Jesus Christ did not take root. She was not the “good soil” that Jesus Christ described in his parable. But this does not mean it is over for her. There are many people who may have visited church or started studying the Bible for a season, only to abandon the faith as time went on – whether it was because life became busy, they were turned off by the people at a certain church or just lost interest. Maybe this has happened to you. But this does not mean that God has written you off. Scripture is clear that God: “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9). If you are a Christian, pray for Katy Perry to repent and truly learn and believe the Biblical Gospel – to know that through faith in Jesus Christ there can beforgiveness of sins and eternal life. No amount of money or fame is worth eternal punishment in hell. And maybe one day Perry will realize this and promote Christ over money, fame and sinful rebellion.
_________________________________________________________
Katy Perry’s Dad: “Katy Is A Child Of The Devil”
SEE:
EXCERPTS:
“Pastor Keith Hudson, the father of pop music mega-star Katy Perry, recently preached several sermons in which he has shown regret over the sinful and satanic influence of his daughter’s music on the young people of the world. The UK Sunobtained footage of a recent sermon in which Hudson called Perry a “devil child” and showed footage of her negative influence, exposing the sinful rebellion her music promotes.”
“Perry clearly erred from the faith by promoting homosexuality to the world and in particular children. As the years went on, Perry rose to multi-platinum status, becoming one of the most successful singers of all-time. All the while her music continued to celebrate sexual promiscuity and rebellion against authority. Perry also became renowned for wearing skimpy outfits and even appearing in naked in a video. Rather than sharing her “Christian upbringing” with the world, she instead chose to lead it into more sinful rebellion against The Lord.”
“Hudson and his wife have run Keith Hudson Ministries for 32 years. According to their Statement of Faith they preach a a brand of charismatic Christianity with a host of unbiblical practices like speaking in tongues (intelligible, gibberish tongues, not the speaking of actual foreign languages as done in the Bible), faith healing, prophecy and “working miracles.” When a pastor takes the position that he is a “modern day prophet” he is proclaiming to receive new revelations from God that are not in the Bible. This opens the door for all sorts of heretical beliefs and activities because the pastor can simply claim, “God just told me to say this.” Of course Scripture makes it clear that there are no more prophets today:
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” – Hebrews 1:1-2.”
ALSO SEE:
http://beginningandend.com/american-horror-story-coven-satanic-witchcraft-goes-mainstream/______________________________________________
Katy Perry Says She Sold Her Soul to the Devil,
Mega Slutty, She-Devil, Hater of God-Katy Perry!:
Katy Perry’s “Teenage Dream” is a
Demonic CURSE to Teenagers!:
http://jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Rock-n-Roll/katy_perry-teenage_curse.htm
Katy Perry’s Illuminati Secrets Exposed:
VATICAN, CATHOLIC PRIEST SEX ABUSE, & THE UNITED NATIONS~WARRING AGAINST TRUE CHRISTIANITY
Vatican’s UN Ambassador Monsignor Silvano Tomasi (L) speaks with
Former Vatican Chief Prosecutor
of Clerical Sexual Abuse Charles Scicluna
Photo: AFP/GETTY IMAGES
Ralph Ovadal of Pilgrims Covenant Church, Monroe, Wisconsin www.pccmonroe.org, has just released this hard hitting, but truthful article from
http://www.pccmonroe.org/2014/01.18.htm, reprinted below in full, unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
A Lovers’ Spat
“With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication” Revelation 17:2
I suppose there is a little grim satisfaction to be had from this story. What’s good for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. But then again, we are talking here about the papal religious/civil behemoth which usually gets a free pass when it comes to Rome’s lying hypocrisy and evil machinations. The Vatican state, like the church, has the pope for its sovereign, as documented by the official Vatican City State web site. For instance, “The Pope is elected by the Cardinals who are under eighty years of age.He becomes Sovereign of Vatican City State the moment he accepts his election as Pope.” The ecumenical evangelicals may want to note that their powerful friend in Rome lobbied for, and signed, the tyrannical, statist U.N Convention on the Rights of the Child which, thankfully, the USA has not yet signed on to. From the article below: “The Vatican was being questioned over its implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990, which it ratified in 1990. Since then it has repeatedly failed to submit reports on the progress it has made in protecting minors from predatory priests and other clergy.”
The Antichrist papacy and the Roman Catholic Church are the archenemies of the true Christian faith and the most important of liberties beside which all others pale in significance, that liberty which is the fountainhead of all other liberties, that everlasting liberty which is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. John 8:36: “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”
Ecumenical evangelicals conveniently ignore this reality because they foolishly think that Rome is their friend when it comes to protecting civil and religious liberty. But, they are only fools twice over in that Rome is working around the clock to destroy true civil and religious liberty. The Vatican, having never given up its dream of world domination, never met a collectivist, statist policy it did not love, even if a few details must needs be tinkered with. This is a fact, as some of us have labored over the years to document. Ecumenical evangelicals need to wake up to the reality that the supposed savior of civil and religious liberties they have embraced is in fact a vicious enemy not only of the Savior of souls they profess but also of our God-given civil and religious liberties. But why should that be any great surprise?
As for this current difficulty between the UN and the pope, it’s only a lovers’ spat which will be patched up soon enough. I close with this April, 2013 quote from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon: “‘It is very important to meet a spiritual leader of the world,’ Ban said at the start of his meeting with the Argentine pope, who last month became the first non-European leader of the world’s Catholics in nearly 1,300 years. ‘The Holy See and the UN share common goals and ideas,’ said Ban—one of the first world leaders to be received at an audience by the new pontiff” (Agence France-Presse).
Pastor Ralph Ovadal
________________________________________________________
RELATED:
Vatican tells UN hearing ‘no excuse’ for child abuse
Vatican has acknowledged there can be “no excuse” for child abuse, confronted for the first time at length and in public over the global priest sex abuse scandal
Victims of clerical abuse accused the Vatican of obfuscating and using “disingenous” arguments as representatives on Thursday came in for unprecedented public questioning by the United Nations over the Catholic Church’s cover-up of the rape of thousands of children by sexually abusive priests.
In testimony to a UN committee in Geneva, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s representative, showed a degree of remorse over church sex abuse scandals, saying that “such crimes can never be justified”.
But he reiterated an argument that the Vatican has long used — that the Holy See cannot be held responsible for the actions of clergy members in countries around the world because its remit extends only to those living and working within the Vatican City State, a tiny sovereign territory where less than 40 children reside.
Priests were “not functionaries of the Vatican but citizens of their countries and fall under the jurisdiction of their own countries”, he said.
The argument was dismissed by campaigners, who said it was clear that the Vatican is the hub of the world-wide Catholic Church and issues orders to dioceses around the globe.
“It is just so disingenuous for Church officials to claim that national governments are responsible for prosecuting clergy when those same Church officials have obstructed justice, helped predator priests move jurisdictions, destroyed evidence and paid off victims and witnesses to remain silent,” said Barbara Blaine, a victim of abuse herself and the president of the US-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
The degree to which the Vatican tackles the issue of sexually abusive clergy is being seen as a key test of the 10-month-old papacy of Pope Francis. He has announced almost weekly initiatives to reform the Holy See’s governance and clean up its finances, but has said little about the shame of predatory priests.
The Vatican has been condemned for moving abusive clergy from one diocese or parish to another, destroying or withholding evidence and failing to report suspected abuse to the police.
“The new Pope seems to be making encouraging gestures in a lot of areas, but he’s doing nothing to even begin to expose — much less reverse —decades of selfish church cover-ups that endanger kids and protect predators. It’s very disappointing. What we heard today felt like more of the same,” Ms Blaine said.
The Vatican was being questioned over its implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990, which it ratified in 1990. Since then it has repeatedly failed to submit reports on the progress it has made in protecting minors from predatory priests and other clergy.
Kirsten Sandberg, the committee’s chairwoman, said: “The view of the committee is that the best way to prevent abuses is to reveal old ones – openness instead of sweeping offences under the carpet. It seems to date your procedures are not very transparent.”
Last month Pope Francis announced the setting up of a committee to address the issue, but victims’ groups described the initiative as “meaningless”. As the UN session was underway, the Pope told worshippers in the Vatican that abuse scandals had “cost us a lot of money, but (paying damages) is only right.”
“Do we feel shame? There are so many scandals that I do not want to name them individually but everyone knows about them,” he said.
Some campaigners saw a glimmer of hope in Geneva, arguing that the shame of being publicly questioned might propel change within the Church.
“This is the first time that questions are being asked,” said Pam Spees, a human rights lawyer for the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights.
“I think we are seeing a shift and monitoring by international bodies can only be a good thing.”
___________________________________________________________________
The degree to which the Vatican tackles the issue of sexually abusive clergy is being seen as a key test of the 10-month-old papacy of Pope Francis. He has announced almost weekly initiatives to reform the Holy See’s governance and clean up its finances, but has said little about the shame of predatory priests.
The Vatican has been condemned for moving abusive clergy from one diocese or parish to another, destroying or withholding evidence and failing to report suspected abuse to the police.
“The new Pope seems to be making encouraging gestures in a lot of areas, but he’s doing nothing to even begin to expose — much less reverse —decades of selfish church cover-ups that endanger kids and protect predators. It’s very disappointing. What we heard today felt like more of the same,” Ms Blaine said.
The Vatican was being questioned over its implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990, which it ratified in 1990. Since then it has repeatedly failed to submit reports on the progress it has made in protecting minors from predatory priests and other clergy.
Kirsten Sandberg, the committee’s chairwoman, said: “The view of the committee is that the best way to prevent abuses is to reveal old ones – openness instead of sweeping offences under the carpet. It seems to date your procedures are not very transparent.”
Last month Pope Francis announced the setting up of a committee to address the issue, but victims’ groups described the initiative as “meaningless”. As the UN session was underway, the Pope told worshippers in the Vatican that abuse scandals had “cost us a lot of money, but (paying damages) is only right.”
“Do we feel shame? There are so many scandals that I do not want to name them individually but everyone knows about them,” he said.
Some campaigners saw a glimmer of hope in Geneva, arguing that the shame of being publicly questioned might propel change within the Church.
“This is the first time that questions are being asked,” said Pam Spees, a human rights lawyer for the US-based Center for Constitutional Rights.
“I think we are seeing a shift and monitoring by international bodies can only be a good thing.”
___________________________________________________________________
TED CRUZ ON OBAMA’S LAWLESSNESS, OBAMACARE, MILITARY PENSIONS, BENGHAZI, NSA SURVEILLANCE
January 17, 2014
Greetings,
This week, once again, Washington politicians failed to listen to the American people. The Senate passed a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill, and the Majority Leader and Senate Democrats refused to reexamine the detrimental harms many families are facing due to Obamacare. The expansion of federal power and the lawlessness promoted among Senate Democrats and the President must stop.
Just this year, President Obama has delayed the employer mandate by a year, without the approval of Congress. He has chosen to modify enforcement of drug crimes, without the approval of Congress. He has granted legal status to illegal immigrants, without the approval of Congress.
We have had enough. It is time to make D.C. listen. I hope you will keep reading below for an update on my recent efforts to bring the people’s voice to Washington.
All the best,
Ted Cruz
We Should Defund Obamacare and Fund Military Pensions
On Thursday, Sen. Cruz asked for unanimous consent to pass one amendment to prohibit the omnibus spending bill from funding Obamacare, then a second amendment to defund Obamacare and use the funds to restore cuts to military pensions.
“This $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill is outrageous enough, but on top of that it provides direct funding for Obamacare, which is destroying jobs, killing insurance plans, causing premiums to increase and people to lose their doctors. We should defund Obamacare and focus our tax dollars on priorities that help Americans, such as restoring full funding for military pensions for the men and women who protect us. Instead, the Senate squelched any debate over Obamacare and proceeded to pass its trillion dollar spending bill no one has even read. The fact that the Washington establishment is hailing a massive $1 trillion omnibus spending bill as a worthy achievement is exactly what’s wrong with our government today.”
Chilling Report Concludes Benghazi Attacks Preventable; Families of Victims Deserve the Truth
On Thursday, Sen. Cruz released the following statement on the Senate Select Committee’s Review of the Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Facilities in Benghazi, Libya:
“The majority views of the SSCI report confirm a number of things long suspected about the Benghazi attacks. Our government was warned, and there were steps that could have been taken to protect Americans. But our people were left at significant risk against a known terrorist threat, and when the attack came, there was no help to send. After the attack, the Obama administration tried to mask its failure with false claims of a protest over an Internet video. All the while, the terrorists who carried out this attack are still at large. Most chilling, however, is the conclusion that the attacks were preventable in the first place.”
Sen. Cruz Questions Government Surveillance Programs
On Monday, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Cruz asked witnesses if government surveillance programs have focused too much on gathering information on law-abiding citizens and too little on people who are actually tied to terrorism. Here are a few highlights:
“I think a great many Americans are concerned about the current state of NSA surveillance. I have concerns on two fronts: I am concerned on the one hand that the federal government has not been effective enough monitoring and surveilling bad guys. That we have not succeeded in preventing what should have been preventable terrorist attacks. And that the same time I am concerned that the sweep of the surveillance has been far too broad with respect to law-abiding citizens. And I think a great many Americans would prefer to see that reversed.
“Am I understanding correctly the conclusions that the commissions received, that in your judgment the bulk metadata program has not to date prevented any specific terrorist attack? Is that an accurate understanding?”
Speaking with Shannon Bream on America’s News HQ
On Sunday, Sen. Cruz spoke with Shannon Bream about President Obama’s lawlessness. People of all political persuasions should be concerned by the current administration’s disregard for the law, Sen. Cruz said.
Israel has lost a great warrior and the United States has lost a great friend
This week, Sen. Cruz reacted to news of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s passing:
“The story of Ariel Sharon’s life was very much the story of the state of Israel from his birth in Kfar Malal twenty years before Israel was established, to fighting in the Six Days war of 1967, to his service as Prime Minister from 2001-06. He experienced enormous struggle and adversity, but persevered in the defense of the nation he loved. Israel has lost a great warrior and the United States has lost a great friend. May he rest in peace.”
 |
|
|
MOM PLEADS FOR HELP FROM COMMON CORE
Mom pleads for help from Common Core
Aspiring political candidate Andre Barnett of Poughkeepsie talks about Common Core during the public comment portion of the Wappingers School Board meeting, in response to the Wappingers Board of Education’s prohibition of a 20-minute presentation about Common Core.–Wappingers Falls, New York. October 28, 2013
GOOGLE BUYS NEST~NOW HAS ENTRY INTO YOUR HOME
5 Reasons Nest Sold To Google
Google gains entry to home and prized team with $3.2 billion Nest deal:
Security expert Katherine Albrecht explains how Google’s recent purchase of smart-device company Nest is its major foray into connected homes and suggests ways to make your online search and correspondence safe and private.
WASHINGTON STATE MOVES TO BLOCK NSA SURVEILLANCE~WILL SHUT OFF WATER & ELECTRIC TO NSA FACILITIES
SEE: http://www.infowars.com/washington-state-moves-to-block-nsa-surveillance/
Bill would cut electricity & water to physical NSA locations:
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 16, 2014
Infowars.com
January 16, 2014
EXCERPTS:
“Washington State Rep. Matt Shea (R) has introduced a “Fourth Amendment Protection Act’ that would block all unlawful NSA surveillance and lay the groundwork for other states to follow suit.”
“House BIll 2272 (PDF), which also received bipartisan backing from Representatives Taylor, Moscoso, Overstreet, Scott, Blake, and Condotta, would codify Washington State’s refusal to allow the federal government to collect the electronic information of its citizens without a warrant.”
FUKUSHIMA: NSA TO USE LOW FLYING HELICOPTERS TO MAP U.S. RADIATION LEVELS~DISCOVERY CHANNEL MINIMIZES SITUATION
DISCOVERY CHANNEL:
STOP WORRYING ABOUT
FUKUSHIMA RADIATION?
SEE:
SCIENTISTS BAFFLED BY MASS SARDINE
DIE-OFF ON WEST COAST:
SEE:
SARDINE & STARFISH DIE-OFF IN PACIFIC OCEAN
DHS USING BELL MODEL 412 HELICOPTERS
DHS Defies FAA Regulations to Monitor Radiation:
DHS BLACKHAWK HELICOPTER
Published on Jan 16, 2014
Homeland Security is concerned enough about radiation that they are breaking the FAA’s rules restricting helicopters to a minimum 1,000 ft elevation (DHS will go to 150ft). And DHS will be doing it with a “massive” helicopter “for years to come”.
BELL MODEL 412 HELICOPTER
LOW FLYING HOMELAND SECURITY
HELICOPTER TO TEST FOR RADIATION
FOR SEVERAL YEARS OVER THE U.S.:
SEE:
EXCERPTS:
“Beginning this week, the federal agency will use a “massive helicopter” from the National Nuclear Security Administration to test for naturally occurring radiation by flying at an altitude of just 150 feet.”
““That is low. That’s like ten stories on a normal building so that’s not very high at all,” Captain Jeff Long told CBS Baltimore, adding that the chopper is much larger and louder than normal helicopters.”
“The increasing use of low flying helicopters in unannounced law enforcement and military exercises has prompted warnings that Americans are being psychologically indoctrinated to accept a militarized police state. In 2012, Miami residents were shocked to be awoken by a military exercise in the middle of the night which involved helicopters, fighter jets, along with simulated gunfire and grenades.”
‘Massive’ low-flying helicopter to test
radiation levels in Baltimore:
DAN BONGINO AT GUN RALLY: “YOU DO NOT FIGHT BACK BY CREATING MORE SHEEP”~GOD GIVEN RIGHTS CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY
OBAMA WILL RULE BY DECREE~WILL NOT WAIT FOR CONGRESS
Obama Vows to Bypass Congress
and Rule by Decree
EXCERPTS:
“Obama declared that his administration would expand its rule-by-decree machinations through the use of even more anti-constitutional “executive orders” and “executive actions.” The radical plan, analysts say, is setting up a potential showdown of historic proportions with lawmakers and an increasingly outraged American public.”
“Of course, over the last five years, the Obama administration has usurped unprecedented amounts of legislative power through the use of more than 150 unconstitutional executive decrees — far worse than the very real abuses perpetrated by his predecessors.”
SEE ALSO:
SEE ALSO:
Obama Announces Plan
to Rule by Executive Order
http://www.infowars.com/obama-announces-plan-to-rule-by-executive-order/:
EXCERPT:
“Obama has officially announced plans to trash the Constitution and move forward with a socialist-corporatist dictatorship without input from Congress or the American people. He made the announcement Tuesday during a cabinet meeting.”