Kerry's vs. Bush's World View
Christians who read their Bibles know that a day is coming when the world will come under the rule of a One World dictator. While many books have been written, some good and some not so good, they always exude much speculation.
While I am critical of such a quasi-biblical sensationalism, the Bible is clear that the world will indeed one day be under the control of one man who heads up a global society.
With this next presidential election, we will be looking at a United States under one of two men with two vastly different ideas about the nature and shape of the world.
The first believes in the true sovereignty of the U.S. and has continuously demonstrated--to the chagrin of liberals—that he will do what is in the best interests of the country whether the rest of the world likes it or not.
The other man, trying to sound like a patriot and All-American, believes that the key to world peace is for all countries to come together in a one big happy community where all just picnic together eating Oreos and drinking cold milk.
This election; please remember both John Kerry’s actions and his words in the first debate. I cite them for your recall.
''No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.”
So far, so good! Then Kerry continues…
“But if and when you do it, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.''
Maybe you don’t get it but he just reversed his tough sounding, all-American start to his statement. It’s called talking out of both sides of your mouth and John Kerry is so masterful at it he can do it while eating a peanut butter sandwich.
The fact is no leader of any stripe would ever be able to “prove” to the citizens of Kerry’s world any case for our national interests. By definition, our “national” interests are wrong precisely because they are national. A one-world order must despise and reject every sense of nationalism. Maybe now you better understand the John Kerry of 1970 and the John Kerry of this campaign.
This election is huge! May God have mercy on us all
While I am critical of such a quasi-biblical sensationalism, the Bible is clear that the world will indeed one day be under the control of one man who heads up a global society.
With this next presidential election, we will be looking at a United States under one of two men with two vastly different ideas about the nature and shape of the world.
The first believes in the true sovereignty of the U.S. and has continuously demonstrated--to the chagrin of liberals—that he will do what is in the best interests of the country whether the rest of the world likes it or not.
The other man, trying to sound like a patriot and All-American, believes that the key to world peace is for all countries to come together in a one big happy community where all just picnic together eating Oreos and drinking cold milk.
This election; please remember both John Kerry’s actions and his words in the first debate. I cite them for your recall.
''No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.”
So far, so good! Then Kerry continues…
“But if and when you do it, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.''
Maybe you don’t get it but he just reversed his tough sounding, all-American start to his statement. It’s called talking out of both sides of your mouth and John Kerry is so masterful at it he can do it while eating a peanut butter sandwich.
The fact is no leader of any stripe would ever be able to “prove” to the citizens of Kerry’s world any case for our national interests. By definition, our “national” interests are wrong precisely because they are national. A one-world order must despise and reject every sense of nationalism. Maybe now you better understand the John Kerry of 1970 and the John Kerry of this campaign.
This election is huge! May God have mercy on us all
posted by PB at 3:53 PM
2 Comments:
I agree that Kerry is an unfit person to lead this monster, but so is Bush. Isn't a shame that in your so called democracy, of an estimated 296,655,844 people, you have two choices for a president?
I think it is.
Kerry:
"But if and when you do it, you've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
I really hope that you do not think that this is not the right thing do.
Cripe:
"the Bible is clear that the world will indeed one day be under the control of one man who heads up a global society"
Who, in your opinion, has the might, desire, etc., to be the sole ruler of the world?
I dare to say that no one in the world, if asked the same question would respond anything else other than the U.S.A.
Indeed, may god bless the the world.
The world view, or more accurately the archaic mythos based mindset of many fundamentals, be they Christian Jewish, Muslim, is a desire for a world where they are the ones in control. If history has taught us anything at all, it is that we must never let this happen again. During the 4th-8th centuries, better known as the Dark ages, the religious authorities were all powerful. Then, in the 11th-15th centuries, the church once again pressed its foot against the neck of common sense. Recently, in the Middle East and here in America, the Christian Church has once again asserted its position of dominance. Unlike the people of these earlier times, however, modern Americans are far better educated and far less likely to give in to mythology based political systems. I have had this argument with Fundamentals on several different religions over the years, both at seminary (where I studied for over seven years) and in graduate school. There is an old saying which rings true of religions: none are as blind as they who refuse to see.
The fundemntalists or all religious dogma's should really read the book they make such pronouncements upon.
Post a Comment
<< Home