Jump to content


Photo

J.R. Nyquist Dream


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

#1 Rocky

Rocky

    Member

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 23 February 2008 - 12:27 PM

A NOTE AFTER THE PASSING OF PRESIDENT'S DAY
by J. R. Nyquist


Providence: God, conceived of as guiding men as a race and as individuals to ends he has in view for them or as preserving individuals from danger through his prescience, loving care, or intervention.

Once upon a time the United States had a president named George W. who was sometimes suspected of stupidity. It was alleged that George W. dozed during cabinet meetings, rarely read reports and didn’t write his own speeches. According to administration insiders, George W. “was, in general, an illiterate, intellectually incompetent cipher who was propped up in public by his staff.” (See Joseph J. Ellis’s account, The Passionate Sage, p. 69.)

The president so described was George Washington and not George W. Bush. It is one of those odd coincidences of history that two presidents, with similar initials, should be similarly criticized. Whatever President Washington’s intellectual merits, he had something else to recommend him. A chieftain who fought against him during the French and Indian War, expressed the view that Washington was protected by the Great Spirit. The chieftain had singled Washington out in battle, ordering several braves to shoot him down. But the bullets were mysteriously deflected. We are told that Washington came through more than one battle with bullet holes in his coat. Whatever the truth of these stories, Washington believed in the protecting hand of Providence and he stated this belief in his First Inaugural Address, in which he said “it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect….” Washington further stated: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.” Speaking of gratitude, Washington then added, “These reflections … have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed.”

Is some supernatural agency in charge of history?

There is a relevant story making the rounds today, documented by author Stephen Mansfield in a book titled The Faith of George W. Bush. According to Mansfield, the 43rd President, long before he became president, knew in advance that he would be president at a terrible moment in American history. This was told to persons in advance, and Mansfield interviewed those persons. Long before thousands died in the terrorist strikes of 9/11, George W. Bush knew that something horrible was coming and that he would be president. He confided that he didn’t want to be president. He knew it would take a toll his family. But he had no choice. It was providential. It was destined.

The skeptics will laugh at this story. But presidential visions are not unknown to history. In fact, they are well documented.

President Abraham Lincoln had several visionary experiences. After learning that he’d been elected president, Lincoln twice saw a deathly image of himself in a mirror. It was an hallucination and a premonition that the presidency would spell his doom. According to historian Stephen B. Oates, Lincoln also had a brush with synchronicity shortly before his death. After waking from a dream, Lincoln opened his Bible “and everywhere he turned his eye fell on passages about dreams, visions, and supernatural visitations.” Days later, turning to his wife and friends at the White House, Lincoln related the dream. During the first week of April 1865, as the Civil War was drawing to an end, the president was pacing the deck of the River Queen while waiting for good news from General Grant.

“I had been up waiting for important dispatches from the front,” Lincoln explained. “I could not have been long in bed when I fell into a slumber, for I was weary. I soon began to dream. There seemed to be a death-like stillness about me. Then I heard subdued sobs, as if a number of people were weeping. I thought I left my bed and wandered downstairs. There the silence was broken by the same pitiful sobbing, but the mourners were invisible. I went from room to room; no living person was in sight, but the same mournful sounds of distress met me as I passed along. It was light in all the rooms; every object was familiar to me; but where were all the people who were grieving as though their hearts would break? I was puzzled and alarmed. What could be the meaning of all this? Determined to find the cause of a state of things so mysterious and so shocking, I kept on until I arrived at the East Room, which I entered. There I met with a sickening surprise. Before me was a catafalque, on which rested a corpse wrapped in funeral vestments. Around it were stationed soldiers who were acting as guards; and there was a throng of people, some gazing mournfully upon the corpse, whose face was covered, others weeping pitifully. 'Who is dead in the White House?' I demanded of one of the soldiers. 'The President,' was his answer; 'he was killed by an assassin!' Then came a loud burst of grief from the crowd, which awoke me from my dream. I slept no more that night; and although it was only a dream, I have been strangely annoyed by it since."

Oates tells us that Lincoln’s wife was upset by the president’s experience. “Well,” Lincoln said in an attempt to comfort her, “it is only a dream, Mary. Let us say no more about it, and try to forget it.”

“Modern” thinkers, priding themselves in being free from superstition, will scoff at stories of this kind. They will deny that meaningful coincidences, precognitive dreams and Providence are real. But Providence itself has defied the skeptics by playing a joke of questionable taste upon their sad, materialist assumptions. Consider if you will the most astonishing synchronicity in American history. Abraham Lincoln was the not the only president to be assassinated by a shot to the head. One other president was also assassinated in this way. Now let us consider the following meaningful and inexplicable coincidences.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. Both were shot on a Friday, both were shot in the head from behind and both were assassinated by Southerners. Lincoln’s secretary was named Kennedy and Kennedy’s secretary was named Lincoln. Both had wives who lost children while living in the White House. Both had successors who were Southerners named Johnson. (Both had a vice president named Johnson.) The assassins in each case were known by three names comprised of fifteen letters. John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839. Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939. Booth ran from the theater where he shot the president and was caught in a warehouse. Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater. Booth and Oswald were both killed before they could stand trial.

Those who would laugh at President George W. Bush’s premonitions, as documented by Stephen Mansfield, ought to reflect on Lincoln’s experiences and the strange relationship evident between two assassinated presidents nearly a century apart. How is this to be explained except that the world is supernaturally ordered?

There is an old idea that has been set aside today. It is the idea that all things are foreordained, that there is a divine plan. Perhaps we have been wrong to set this idea aside and forget the wisdom of our ancestors.

In closing, I will outrage the skeptics further by mentioning a dream I experienced 23 years ago. In the dream I saw the future presidents of the United States. Their portraits were lined side by side from left to right. The first in order was Ronald Reagan who had just been elected. The second was George H. W. Bush. The next two faces I did not recognize. An old man was present in the dream and I turned to him. “Where are the others?” I asked, wanting to see the rest of the future presidents. “There are no others,” he replied. “After these the Republic ends.”

I don’t know whether my dream was inspired by a higher power, or whether it occurred after eating a bad pizza. The latter interpretation is preferable. But coincidentally, while putting together this column, I stumbled upon the following quote from Arthur Livingston’s introduction to Gaetano Mosca’s masterpiece, The Ruling Class. According to Livingston, “The people’s of the Western world have for some generations now been familiar with systems where armies and navies are rigidly subject to civil authorities, and they are wont to regard the military rebellion as something exceptional and monstrous. Actually the human beings who have lived on this earth in security from the brutal rule of the soldier are so few in number, on the background of the whole of human history, as hardly to count.”

President’s Day has just passed, but perhaps it is not too late to reflect on our good fortune. Appreciate what you have while you have it.

http://www.financial.../2004/0219.html


© 2004 Jeffrey R. Nyquist
February 19, 2004

#2 Minuteman

Minuteman

    Member

  • Members
  • 133 posts

Posted 24 February 2008 - 01:49 AM

Is some supernatural agency in charge of history?...

...Those who would laugh at President George W. Bush’s premonitions, as documented by Stephen Mansfield, ought to reflect on Lincoln’s experiences and the strange relationship evident between two assassinated presidents nearly a century apart. How is this to be explained except that the world is supernaturally ordered?

There is an old idea that has been set aside today. It is the idea that all things are foreordained, that there is a divine plan. Perhaps we have been wrong to set this idea aside and forget the wisdom of our ancestors.

...In closing, I will outrage the skeptics further by mentioning a dream I experienced 23 years ago. ...


It's exceedingly easy to disregard the apparent ramblings of those who would dream dreams. When one's worldview is so narcissitically self controlled where nothing establishes itself in one's reality without one's leave, all other realities are relegated to the backseat or perhaps nonexistance. Our society is now founded in this self centered realm of control. Very few individuals will give up their own perception of what is applicable to their lives in a sense that it alters their world view. Divine Providence you say? Mystical ramblings of an unstable mind, the self controlling individual says.

I've often communicated a principle to those I've locked horns with regarding the existence of God... Jehova, God of the Bible. It is as follows... The existence of God is not at all dependent upon what you or I think of Him. In slightly other terms, He does not order His ways or days by our leave. Quite the contrary.

The concept of God communicating to His people through dreams is not an uncommon one. Read the entire story of Joseph in Genesis. It is absolutely predicated on the existence of prophecy through dreams.

God even tells us to expect this very thing.

'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams." Acts 2:17

In the interest of keeping topics relevant to TFP, however, I will leave it at that.

#3 Guest_Eagle Strike_*

Guest_Eagle Strike_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 February 2008 - 02:17 PM

It's exceedingly easy to disregard the apparent ramblings of those who would dream dreams. When one's worldview is so narcissitically self controlled where nothing establishes itself in one's reality without one's leave, all other realities are relegated to the backseat or perhaps nonexistance. Our society is now founded in this self centered realm of control. Very few individuals will give up their own perception of what is applicable to their lives in a sense that it alters their world view. Divine Providence you say? Mystical ramblings of an unstable mind, the self controlling individual says.

I've often communicated a principle to those I've locked horns with regarding the existence of God... Jehova, God of the Bible. It is as follows... The existence of God is not at all dependent upon what you or I think of Him. In slightly other terms, He does not order His ways or days by our leave. Quite the contrary.

The concept of God communicating to His people through dreams is not an uncommon one. Read the entire story of Joseph in Genesis. It is absolutely predicated on the existence of prophecy through dreams.

God even tells us to expect this very thing.

'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams." Acts 2:17

In the interest of keeping topics relevant to TFP, however, I will leave it at that.



Well then I might as well give you my recurring dream. This has been going on for over a year. I am walking down the streets of Manhattan on a nice warm and sunny day. I am usually dressed in a suit. I am coming out from my building and bammmmo.....white hot flashes....I am instantly vaporized. Sometimes I wake up right after that. Sometimes I don't....when I don't, I see the aftermath as if I never died. Shells and skeletons of steel from the buildings and skyscrapers, scorched and burnt as is the rubble. The stench is nauseating....and ash is everywhere. The colors are burnt orange, greys and black...with dark clouds all around. The only people I see are those in rescue with full bio-hazard suits...but they are few and far between. No one wants to come here.

What is strange is this....I have my family with me and I keep telling in practically every dream I've had...."Do you believe me now?"

#4 907ie

907ie

    Member

  • Members
  • 308 posts

Posted 25 February 2008 - 12:07 AM

Well I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Perhaps a dozen times over the last 9 or so years, but not so much lately, I have had a strange dream as well.

It usually begins just walking in the door from work, late late afternoon, then a seemingly distant but still very intense light on the horizon brightens the windows, and vividly floods under the still closing garage door. The scene fades out and I'm in the woods, it's late, very quiet, nearly dark, I'm laying next to a fallen tree with a rifle.
I screw the suppressor onto the barrel of an old familiar friend, the Mod0 SPR, check the NV scope for function, and adjust the loudness of the radio earphone during someone else's radio check.
Then the dream ends.

Sometimes I remember getting out of a car, and hitting the garage door button as I come in the door, sometimes I hit it in the car, sometimes the dream begins at the door. Everything else is always exactly the same.

#5 SJL

SJL

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,365 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 February 2008 - 04:29 AM

Well then I might as well give you my recurring dream. This has been going on for over a year. I am walking down the streets of Manhattan on a nice warm and sunny day. I am usually dressed in a suit. I am coming out from my building and bammmmo.....white hot flashes....I am instantly vaporized. Sometimes I wake up right after that. Sometimes I don't....when I don't, I see the aftermath as if I never died. Shells and skeletons of steel from the buildings and skyscrapers, scorched and burnt as is the rubble. The stench is nauseating....and ash is everywhere. The colors are burnt orange, greys and black...with dark clouds all around. The only people I see are those in rescue with full bio-hazard suits...but they are few and far between. No one wants to come here.

What is strange is this....I have my family with me and I keep telling in practically every dream I've had...."Do you believe me now?"


What I know is that "dreams of children", to me, are more valuable than the common attardations of "adults", or, should I say, the retardations of liberals on matters of sex and what not materialist "styles" and greedy behaviors or liabilities to their own "lives". The obsession on "professional" repeatability and "feelings of security" of the supposedly "suit and tie rationalists" has become so faithless, cowardly and poor of spirit as to look pathetic these days. They do not even understand what they are talking about.

The movie of the paradox in illustration is Bourne identity. Here is a man who knows nothing about himself, but every one else does, and, yet, this amnesic survivor is capable of figuring the whole world and gaining a newfound identity of his. This survivability (and "repeatability" which transcends the "order" obsessed bosses and threatens their very dogmas of repeatability) has them obsessed with hunting not only the man, but this defying survival of a man who should be dead. The man is not attarded by things of the "past" or the mundane, he goes forward while the rest are stuck backwards in a spiral of self destruction. Is he on the run or has he them on the run? The classical Rambo now turns modern.

The obsession of the materialists on secrecy spawns back from satanism too. The reason is that satanists and materialists cannot see God, as if He were a secret to them. So they turn to deception, lies and secrecy as a sort of mirroring or immitating of God in polar opposite. The only reason they keep secrets from us naive sheeps is not because we are stupid, but because we sometimes too are sinful and blind like them. So they relish in killing us when we are becoming like them... and that's not a bad thing in itself, because I'd rather die in the flesh than in spirit.

For instance the communists have a neo-communist language through the gay crowd. They used to say: they do not know it, but they love communism. Gays nowadays embrace a similar method of "thinking": you do not know it, but you are gay. The "coming out of the closet" language is also communistic of "communists who admit they are so", when in fact their admission still hides sin-isterer information from the rest. In the same way those very gays who claim hypocriticaly that bisexuals are bad, they embrace a greed for sex and power of all kinds while relegated the rest "equaly" to "lower ambitions" of "pure homosexuality". The bottom line is they live in a state of higher secrecy and hypocrisy than they are ready to admit. Liberals claim they are liberal and admit of their propensities, when in fact their propensity is inwardly worse - and they are inherently conspiratorial.

It's like a child of satan who makes others believe that they see what every other christian sees, but in fact does not see anything and only pretends. This level of deception makes those types secretive, and they feel a newfound power in their state of powerlessness and embarassement at not being able or willing to see Christ or a "wise point". Once others do not see them for who they are, they feel like God Who is not seen either and enjoy for a time the assumptions others have of them. They also delight in mystifying things that should be clear to all, like science or language, and delve into insinuations and inuendos of most paranoiac proportions for the littlest of things. They love to exploit children and despise the wise and experienced.

Christ seemed to mean: you all want signs and visions, but a mere peasant can look at the sky and see the storm of tomorrow coming, so even a sign from me or Heaven you could not see... implying that only "the peasants" can corroborate accurately visions with the signs of the times, and certainly not the media or pundits that the Pharisees seemed to embody back then. I know that visions allow one to have something that clicks in the back of their head as a result of their everyday observations. Another story like that is of the official who could not see God on the side of the road, but his donkey would and veered off route as a result for him (only to be beat), even scolding him for being blinder than a donkey.

#6 bm_cali

bm_cali

    Member

  • Admin
  • 3,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco hinterlands, USA
  • Interests:Winning the next world war. General curmudgeon-ship.

Posted 27 February 2008 - 03:22 PM

Take a step back. Look at the geopolitical trend. Look at the "Munich 1936 redux" 2008 Olympics. Look at the unquestionable cliff like drop in global temperatures since early last year. Look at the obvious end of the "post Cold War" economic boom. Now, superimpose on this a well known vulnerability in the US political process, namely, a presidential election year, with no "continuity" candidate, and the inevitable long and drawn out lame duck period between November and late Jan the following year.

No matter who gets elected, there is no guaranty that individual will ever be sworn in. The worst may come prior to that.

#7 ABlay

ABlay

    Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 27 February 2008 - 05:29 PM

Take a step back. Look at the geopolitical trend. Look at the "Munich 1936 redux" 2008 Olympics. Look at the unquestionable cliff like drop in global temperatures since early last year. Look at the obvious end of the "post Cold War" economic boom. Now, superimpose on this a well known vulnerability in the US political process, namely, a presidential election year, with no "continuity" candidate, and the inevitable long and drawn out lame duck period between November and late Jan the following year.

No matter who gets elected, there is no guaranty that individual will ever be sworn in. The worst may come prior to that.


Yes, I've long been of the opinion that when the SHTF it would take place AFTER a Presidential election but BEFORE inauguration. At least, that's when I would strike if I were the enemy...

#8 bm_cali

bm_cali

    Member

  • Admin
  • 3,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco hinterlands, USA
  • Interests:Winning the next world war. General curmudgeon-ship.

Posted 29 February 2008 - 09:10 PM

Lately Obama has made the following statements:
- He is not a Muslim, and is a Christian (albeit, of the liberal UCC Protestant type) - Muslims would view this as an afront, given Obama's given name and Muslim birth.
- He reiterated that he would pursue a military solution in Waziristan - which, while now being tried in a sense, is still a very combative thing to say.
- Said in essence Mr. Putin and Mr. Hu, tear down those nukes
- Says US out of NAFTA
- and on and on

Many highly non PC, "dangerous" things, guaranteed to anger many outside and even inside the US.

I am quite conflicted about such statements. I make similar ones myself. And, I would say, since WW2, US leaders have been too scared to say "dangerous" things.

But, it is what it is.

And, given that, Obama is inviting physical attack on both the US / US interests, and his own person. How many Sirhan Sirhans lurk in apartments in Dearborn or Sunnyvale?

I am getting very, very worried about where this is headed.

Indeed, George W may be the last.

Obama may not be sworn in before the SHTF.

And don't forget his wife's own expressed fear that she'd be widdowed by assassination. She has said some pretty outrageous things, but that one I find to be not outrageous, but eerily chilling.

#9 WmWallace

WmWallace

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 2,977 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 February 2008 - 10:10 PM

I've had thoughts of concern, too, about Obama being assassinated and turmoil leading up to the election or inauguration.

As far as Jeff's dream about President Bush being the last president, only time will tell. But, I think it's important to keep in mind that Jeff isn't offering this - at least I don't think so (I'd have to re-read his piece) - as some sort of solid prophesy of his.

p.s. I have re-read it now and the quote from Jeff below qualifies in my mind that he is not offering it as some sort of solid prophecy:

I don’t know whether my dream was inspired by a higher power, or whether it occurred after eating a bad pizza. The latter interpretation is preferable. But coincidentally, while putting together this column, I stumbled upon the following quote from Arthur Livingston’s introduction to Gaetano Mosca’s masterpiece, The Ruling Class. According to Livingston, “The people’s of the Western world have for some generations now been familiar with systems where armies and navies are rigidly subject to civil authorities, and they are wont to regard the military rebellion as something exceptional and monstrous. Actually the human beings who have lived on this earth in security from the brutal rule of the soldier are so few in number, on the background of the whole of human history, as hardly to count.”


Still, though, I have concerns for the timetable we may be on. Things can - and have in the past - come apart very quickly.

Another thing I'm concerned about is just how much hysteria surrounds Obama - almost messiah-like in his effect on his supporters.

Could it be that he is elected, assumes office, and one day delivers us to a "non-Republic" as some sort of lead-in to, or result of, the machinations of "the final phase" have been fulfilled (e.g., some sort of dictatorial transition or voiding of the Constitution in response to a delivered ultimatum of our enemies)?

The lessons that might ensue from the 'Republic's last President' may be tied to the meaning of history: His Story to mankind.

Just a thought.

#10 Hunter

Hunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 29 February 2008 - 11:45 PM

Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946. Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860. John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960. Both were shot on a Friday, both were shot in the head from behind and both were assassinated by Southerners. Lincoln’s secretary was named Kennedy and Kennedy’s secretary was named Lincoln. Both had wives who lost children while living in the White House. Both had successors who were Southerners named Johnson. (Both had a vice president named Johnson.) The assassins in each case were known by three names comprised of fifteen letters. John Wilkes Booth was born in 1839. Lee Harvey Oswald was born in 1939. Booth ran from the theater where he shot the president and was caught in a warehouse. Oswald ran from a warehouse and was caught in a theater. Booth and Oswald were both killed before they could stand trial.


I've had my own premonitions and I am a firm believer in Providence and serendipity. I agree with the basic premise that the "republic" will cease to exist before long and I respect Jeff’s work greatly… however, I must rebut some assumptions made on the Lincoln / Kennedy comparisons:

1. Both Kennedy and Lincoln were assassinated by southerners? Not true. Booth was born in Maryland and lived in the north. While he clearly allied himself with the confederate cause (but did not fight for them), he was no more southern than Lincoln himself (who was Kentucky born).

2. Kennedy’s secretary was Evelyn Lincoln but Lincoln’s only known secretaries were both men with names other than Kennedy.

3. John Wilkes Booth was born in 1938 not 1939.

4. Booth was killed by law enforcement in a standoff which was common in the 1800s.

That being said, I think we’re all connected and circumstance does provide clues that Providential stewardship does exist. All profound events are somehow connected to make us consider that which is greater than ourselves. In this regard I consider the writings and dreams of Jeff noteworthy.

#11 Rocky

Rocky

    Member

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 02 March 2008 - 10:14 AM

My take on Jeff sharing his dream is more than him sharing a dream. He shared it because it was significant and meaningful and he shared it in the context of those receiving dreams about the longevity of the presidency. The Bible clearly teaches that God will give visions and dreams in the last days. See Joel 2.

I don't take this dream lightly because Jeff is not given to lots of dreams and prophecies. Actually I believe it is a prophecy and I take it as such!!! But that's me. Others see it differently. For ME, I'm expecting Bush to be the last U.S. President...and I'm thinking Jeff is thinking the same thing...

#12 Guest_Franklin Sousley_*

Guest_Franklin Sousley_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 March 2008 - 04:31 PM

My opinion is that the assasination of JFK was conducted as a joint operation of the Soviets and the Cubans.

The Cubans wanted to kill Kennedy because he was trying to kill Castro.

The Soviets killed Kennedy because they realized the U.S lacked the courage to accuse them of the murder. Accusing the Soviets would have led to total war.

The Soviets wanted to kill Kennedy because they realized that the U.S government's cover up of Soviet/Cuban involvement would (with tremendous Soviet assistance) create tremendous distrust of the U.S government among their own citizens.

This distrust helped to radically change the outlook of this country for the worse.

I am afraid that a similar operation mounted against Senator Obama Hussein Barak would steer this country towards a terrible outcome.

#13 WmWallace

WmWallace

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 2,977 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 March 2008 - 05:44 PM

This notion of the possible assassination of Obama has already been whispered about by Black supporters (I forget which particular organization mentioned it - it was on Drudge last week...sorry, don't have the link) and is something that is clearly in the concerned minds of many.

As such, just one element alone needs to be considered as it's probably ruminating in dark minds in our country: the lone nut.

I wonder just how this would play out?

Say the Dem convention was over and done with (early Autumn?) and Obama got the nomination. Then, in mid-Oct, some lone nut assassinates him.

What happens at that point with the process?

Is the "runner-up" then made the Dem hopeful - Hillary?

I wonder what the mechanism is that would respond to such an event.

Nathan mentions the worst case scenario: an assassination on the eve of the election. The far Left and Right would think Bush did it! They'd probably declare, "He's making his move on a dictatorship!"

Then, all hell could break loose.
__

The lone-nut case concerns me most.

#14 Shawna11

Shawna11

    Member

  • Admin
  • 810 posts

Posted 03 March 2008 - 02:48 AM

In the dream I saw the future presidents of the United States. Their portraits were lined side by side from left to right. The first in order was Ronald Reagan who had just been elected. The second was George H. W. Bush. The next two faces I did not recognize. An old man was present in the dream and I turned to him. “Where are the others?” I asked, wanting to see the rest of the future presidents. “There are no others,” he replied. “After these the Republic ends.”


The words that interest me most are ". . . the Republic ends." I think of Julius Caesar, who became consul in 59 B.C., but was ultimately declared "dictator for life" in 45 B.C. Though Rome had been growing less republican and more imperial over the years, it's significant that the decisive and irrevocable shift from republic to empire occurred in the lifetime of one man. History does not remember Julius Caesar as "former consul of the Roman Republic" (though he was that), but as a dictator (significantly, given the recent discussion here, one who was assassinated).

A similarly accelerated, "burn all bridges" transition could occur in the U.S. Whomever is elected may not be remembered by future generations as a "president" at all because the United States will cease to be a republic. Economic collapse, socio-political balkanization, civil unrest, WMD attacks, and nuclear war are not republic-friendly phenomena.

#15 bm_cali

bm_cali

    Member

  • Admin
  • 3,905 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco hinterlands, USA
  • Interests:Winning the next world war. General curmudgeon-ship.

Posted 03 March 2008 - 11:49 PM

This is getting off topic, but related in a way.

Recently Obama said, "I am a devout Christian," and "I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can."

It's probably too soon to know what the Council on American and Islamic Relations (CAIR) has to say about this if anything, but it's got to be offensive, the son of a muslim father professing faith in Christ. CAIR (or any other muslim organization) isn't going support that. On the contrary, it is likely to be offensive to muslims and widens the playing field for lone crazies. We've had a number of incidents in the US where independent muslims have gone on rampages of one kind or another in the name of their religion.

Hahahaha...the liberal candidate is personally offensive to muslims. Meanwhile, muslim women at Harvard have commandeered the gym for state trumping, male-free workouts.


That is so true.

As much as I may disagree with a good many of his policies (although that said, there are actually a few that are, if not entirely agreeable, at least interesting) I would also say that his overall professed life orientation and platform are precisely the things that the anti Western fiends hate the most about America. He is a true product of the second half of the 20th century, a symbol of post war America. His mere existence speaks to the full fruition of liberalism and everything about it, good, bad and indifferent.

This may be the final spark, to start a fire of anti Western fiendishness. Just as America arrives at a certain point. This is the final phase in all respects. If those who hate us are going to make their move, they are going to do so soon. The true nature of our enemies will be shown.

Do not fear this man. Fear the reaction to him, from afar.

#16 befruitful

befruitful

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,121 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2008 - 12:44 AM

I dunno for sure, but humour in medicine.



Ossana and Hilary are likely to kiss and makeup. After all, Oprah needs a good show.



Down set reverse gramschi- now!!¡¡

#17 WmWallace

WmWallace

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • 2,977 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 March 2008 - 01:04 AM

Recently Obama said, "I am a devout Christian," and "I pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can."


Maybe he's lying and his Islamic brethren know he's lying because he has to lie to get elected; therefore, they're not offended because they believe he will advance his "higher calling," in time, after he's elected.

#18 Guest_Eagle Strike_*

Guest_Eagle Strike_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 March 2008 - 01:42 PM

That is very true. Further down the road - isn't it muslim methodology to give a series of warnings? If Obama is elected, will we hear Osama bin laden issue warnings to him to "return to the religion of your Father"?

I agree with bm_cali - the time to strike is getting ripe. Hugo Chavez is revving up his recently acquired war machine, rockets are falling on Israeli towns, the Turks are riled up, Kosovo's fuse is lit, our election season is almost upon us, the dollar is low, gold and oil are high, so much more...



It's just a matter of time now...

#19 Rocky

Rocky

    Member

  • Members
  • 396 posts

Posted 05 March 2008 - 05:41 PM

What ended WWI was the 1918 flu pandemic. If this Avian Flu goes human to human there will be no war as over 1 billion will die. Right now internists are saying the present form of Bird Flu is only two minor mutations away from going H2H. I can see a pandemic breaking out that forces everyone indoors and the current President invoking martial law. My question is whether the leaders of the world have an immunization or if this bug will mutate rendering all 'cures' useless.

#20 Shawna11

Shawna11

    Member

  • Admin
  • 810 posts

Posted 15 October 2008 - 01:43 PM

http://www.worldnetd...mp;pageId=76933

If Obama is, indeed, not legally a U.S. citizen, then he can never legitimately be "President Obama" even if elected this November.

Another way in which JRN's dream could be proven poignantly, tragically accurate.

DNC steps in to silence lawsuit over Obama birth certificate
Democrat suing his own party says it's 'like they're in cahoots'
Posted: October 04, 2008

By Drew Zahn

Philip J. Berg
The man suing Sen. Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee for proof of Obama's American citizenship is outraged that his own party – rather than just providing the birth certificate he seeks – would step in to silence him by filing a motion to dismiss his lawsuit.

As WND reported, prominent Pennsylvania Democrat and attorney Philip J. Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court two months ago claiming Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen and therefore not eligible to be elected president. Berg has since challenged Obama publicly that if the candidate will simply produce authorized proof of citizenship, he'll drop the suit.

Berg told WND the longer the DNC tries to ignore his lawsuit or make it go away – instead of just providing the documents – the more convinced he is that his accusations are correct.

Despite assertions by the Washington Post, FactChecker.org and other organizations that Obama has produced a certified Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg told WND he remains "99.99 percent sure" that the certificate is a fake and he wants a court, not a website, to determine its validity.

Earlier last week, lawyers for Obama and the DNC filed a joint motion to dismiss Berg's lawsuit. The fact that the DNC joined in the dismissal request has Berg fuming, believing his party's leaders have ignored his pleas for proof in order to favor their chosen candidate over a rank-and-file constituent.

"I think it's outrageous," Berg said. "The Democratic National Committee should be ensuring the Democratic Party and the public that they have a qualified candidate up there. To file a joint motion is like they're in cahoots.

"Since then, I have asked by way of press release that Howard Dean resign, because (the DNC members) are not fulfilling their duties," Berg said.

"The DNC has a responsibility to all Democrats in this country to make sure that all of their candidates are properly vetted and properly qualified," Berg added. "I think it's really an outrage to the 18-plus million people who voted for Obama and the people who donated more than $425 million to him under false pretenses."

Berg is frustrated, not only with his own party's leadership for allegedly not investigating Obama's background, but also with the major news outlets for failing as well.

"I should also be suing the national media and their disgrace for not properly vetting, inspecting or checking on Barack Obama.

"Look what they're doing to Governor Palin: They're opening up her closet doors, they're going through everything personal, but no one has ever gone after Obama. It doesn't make sense," Berg said.

Obama's website counters Berg's claims with links to articles that affirm the validity of his citizenship and an image of a Hawaiian birth certificate for Barack Hussein Obama, born in Honolulu, Aug. 4, 1961. The webpage is part of the Obama campaign website's "Fight the Smears" section, an effort to prevent reports that Obama claims are false from disseminating as damaging rumors.

Berg acknowledges that as long as his lawsuit remains outstanding, the public will talk, and he told WND he wants Obama to quickly prove him wrong or the court to quickly prove him right.

"I've been on about 50 radio shows around the country," Berg said, "and on every one I've put out a challenge: Barack Obama, if I'm wrong, just come forth with certified copies of these documents and I'll close down the case."

Berg told WND, "I've had 19 million hits on my website. …Those people talk to other people, now we're up to 20, 30, 40 million people who are aware of this controversy, and it's going to drastically affect the entire election."

When asked what he would do if the DNC succeeded in getting his case dismissed, Berg said he would "immediately file an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and if we don't get a fair ruling there, immediately to the U.S. Supreme Court."

"We're dealing with the U.S. Constitution and it must be followed," Berg explained. "I want the Constitution enforced; that's my main reason for doing this.

"The real outrage is that there's nothing in our system that provides that a candidate must provide that his qualifications are true and correct before he or she runs, and that safeguard should be put into our system by law," Berg said.


Does anyone have an update on Berg's lawsuit, or on any progress toward determining Obama's legal status?