Advent Talk
General Category => General Discussions => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on June 14, 2013, 06:31:01 AM
-
There are calls to prosecute Edward Snowden for treason or some such, but no one seems to be calling for the prosecution of our public officials for treason for violating the U.S. Constitution by ex parte snooping in everyone's phone records without probable cause for 7 years. Is it justifiable to go after Snowden and not go after those responsible for the snooping?
-
There are calls to prosecute Edward Snowden for treason or some such, but no one seems to be calling for the prosecution of our public officials for treason for violating the U.S. Constitution by ex parte snooping in everyone's phone records without probable cause for 7 years. Is it justifiable to go after Snowden and not go after those responsible for the snooping?
Snowden is a traitor and needs to be prosecuted to the highest level. It is for sure that as technology increases it will become more important for our government to gather as much information as possible as to avert another 9/11, one possibly from inside the United States by an American citizen. Whether it be the government or the private sector people must understand when they willfully communicate with the modern means of communication they will subject themselves to easedropping by private or government agencies. The Constitution is not without fault, it is not the Bible a sacred book to be upheld without an eye to where we are in history. We might not want to except it but we are living in perilous times and as such extraordinary means must be taken to keep the countries of the world as safe as possible. The lie is that the United States and other developed countries of the world are snooping on their people as to one day enslave them, they don't need to do that, one nuke could accomplish that. I believe the leaders of the world are filled with fear as they see the things coming on the world and thus they are trying mightily to avert the coming catastrophe. As for Snowden who has made himself God, in one swift move may have just jeopardized the entire world.
-
christian, I'd like to dialog about this some more.
1) The world would be a safer place, and many murders as well as terrorist attacks would be thwarted, if the government was empowered to bug every room in every house in America, without probable cause. Correct? Should we therefore ignore the restrictions of the 4th amendment, without repealing it, and thereby abandon the rule of law?
2) Is there ever a time when someone with information called "classified" can blow the whistle? For example, suppose a government agency was involved in an assassination or a burglary or a Watergate-style operation where the administration was spying on the opposing political party, and the documents about the incident were all classified. Is there ever a time when someone can blow the whistle by reporting criminality without being thereby a traitor?
3) "I believe the leaders of the world are filled with fear as they see the things coming on the world and thus they are trying mightily to avert the coming catastrophe." If that really is true, then our leaders can tell us specific instances when this secret snatching of everyone's phone records actually resulted in thwarting attacks, attacks that couldn't have been thwarted otherwise.
But more importantly, doesn't Rev. 13:11-17 tell us of the final catastrophe coming upon the world, and the U.S.'s role in it, and doesn't the creation of a huge, secret surveilance state, as well as secret prisons, torture, being held indefinitely without charges, etc., fit in with that prophecy?
-
christian, I'd like to dialog about this some more.
1) The world would be a safer place, and many murders as well as terrorist attacks would be thwarted, if the government was empowered to bug every room in every house in America, without probable cause. Correct? Should we therefore ignore the restrictions of the 4th amendment, without repealing it, and thereby abandon the rule of law?
2) Is there ever a time when someone with information called "classified" can blow the whistle? For example, suppose a government agency was involved in an assassination or a burglary or a Watergate-style operation where the administration was spying on the opposing political party, and the documents about the incident were all classified. Is there ever a time when someone can blow the whistle by reporting criminality without being thereby a traitor?
3) "I believe the leaders of the world are filled with fear as they see the things coming on the world and thus they are trying mightily to avert the coming catastrophe." If that really is true, then our leaders can tell us specific instances when this secret snatching of everyone's phone records actually resulted in thwarting attacks, attacks that couldn't have been thwarted otherwise.
But more importantly, doesn't Rev. 13:11-17 tell us of the final catastrophe coming upon the world, and the U.S.'s role in it, and doesn't the creation of a huge, secret surveilance state, as well as secret prisons, torture, being held indefinitely without charges, etc., fit in with that prophecy?
I have wondered what exactly the phone number, internet, cell phones information could be used for in the time we live. It seems to me that unless the United States were really looking for harmfull information there would be no rational reason to bug everyones communications. Also, in light of the last days prediction it is not the government we have to fear, contrary to public belief but rather the religions of the world, Catholic, Protestants, the bible says their will come a time when they will seek to kill you in my name. I personally do not fear the government as much as I fear the church and its ability to justify things in the name of God. As far as the government telling us anything, even if they told us they averted a nuclear explosion etc... we would not believe it.
I believe that the people in the Government are really trying to do what they think will keep the country safe. I think it is the religious nuts that will take what the government and technology has supplied and use it against God and his people. Again, I would like for you to tell me what can be gained from our cell phone records etc... that would take away our freedom?
The real fear I have is that the supposed religious will in the last days use programs like this against sincere Christians bringing up past sins. Those that fear these programs are those that secretly sit in their homes pretending to be Christian while inwardly they are destitute. The many professed Christians who watch porn and talk trash on the phone, the secrets so long kept secret will come to light. There is no inherent wrong in the government knowing what I do if I have clean hands and a pure heart.
-
christian, I'd like to dialog about this some more.
1) The world would be a safer place, and many murders as well as terrorist attacks would be thwarted, if the government was empowered to bug every room in every house in America, without probable cause. Correct? Should we therefore ignore the restrictions of the 4th amendment, without repealing it, and thereby abandon the rule of law?
We have to trust to that the people we have in office will show some kind of rational thinking. Again the constitution is not the bible, at times certain corrections must be made based on the situation. There are already laws put in place to suspend certain parts of the constitution during emergencies.
2) Is there ever a time when someone with information called "classified" can blow the whistle? For example, suppose a government agency was involved in an assassination or a burglary or a Watergate-style operation where the administration was spying on the opposing political party, and the documents about the incident were all classified. Is there ever a time when someone can blow the whistle by reporting criminality without being thereby a traitor?
Yes there is but he or she must understand that it is possible they were wrong in their action and thus pay the price if they are wrong. I believe in this case it was wrong for him expose the program, we live in perilous times. As the bible predicted, men's hearts failing them for fear of what is coming on the earth.
3) "I believe the leaders of the world are filled with fear as they see the things coming on the world and thus they are trying mightily to avert the coming catastrophe." If that really is true, then our leaders can tell us specific instances when this secret snatching of everyone phone records actually resulted in thwarting attacks, attacks that couldn't have been thwarted otherwise.
They have already given examples where the program was used to stop terrorist attacks in America and abroad.
But more importantly, doesn't Rev. 13:11-17 tell us of the final catastrophe coming upon the world, and the U.S.'s role in it, and doesn't the creation of a huge, secret surveillance state, as well as secret prisons, torture, being held indefinitely without charges, etc., fit in with that prophecy?
It is not the government that causes the destruction that is coming on the earth but rather the fanatical religion right who do not believe in separation of church and state. History from the Catholic church tells us that in the name of religion all the afore mention horrors happen.
-
Also, in light of the last days prediction it is not the government we have to fear, contrary to public belief but rather the religions of the world, Catholic, Protestants, the bible says their will come a time when they will seek to kill you in my name.
The problem is that it is the Protestant American government that Rev. 13 is referring to, not just a stateless church. One of the two horns on the 2nd beast is republicanism, and that is pointing to a particular type of governmental power.
Again, I would like for you to tell me what can be gained from our cell phone records etc... that would take away our freedom?
We've already discussed Danny's claims to have gotten phone card phone records, and the fact that he couldn't get those without a court order. Thus you might ask yourself why it would be problematic for every phone company to publicly publish all of your phone records, without permission, and without a court order. That idea will probably rub you wrong.
There is no inherent wrong in the government knowing what I do if I have clean hands and a pure heart.
Yes, there is an inherent wrong. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the U.S. Constitution forbids that sort of thing, unless there is due process.
-
christian, I'd like to dialog about this some more.
1) The world would be a safer place, and many murders as well as terrorist attacks would be thwarted, if the government was empowered to bug every room in every house in America, without probable cause. Correct? Should we therefore ignore the restrictions of the 4th amendment, without repealing it, and thereby abandon the rule of law?
We have to trust to that the people we have in office will show some kind of rational thinking. Again the constitution is not the bible, at times certain corrections must be made based on the situation. There are already laws put in place to suspend certain parts of the constitution during emergencies.
Please cite such laws, laws which themselves do not violate the constitution, since the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Secondly, how can we trust the people we have in office if they are admitted liars, such as Trapper? He admitted that he stooped so so low as to give the "least untruthful answer possible" when testifying under oath. The answer? We can't! We can only trust people who are honest and upright. We can't trust liars.
2) Is there ever a time when someone with information called "classified" can blow the whistle? For example, suppose a government agency was involved in an assassination or a burglary or a Watergate-style operation where the administration was spying on the opposing political party, and the documents about the incident were all classified. Is there ever a time when someone can blow the whistle by reporting criminality without being thereby a traitor?
Yes there is but he or she must understand that it is possible they were wrong in their action and thus pay the price if they are wrong. I believe in this case it was wrong for him expose the program, we live in perilous times. As the bible predicted, men's hearts failing them for fear of what is coming on the earth.
Did he expose criminal activity, unconstitutional activity?
3) "I believe the leaders of the world are filled with fear as they see the things coming on the world and thus they are trying mightily to avert the coming catastrophe." If that really is true, then our leaders can tell us specific instances when this secret snatching of everyone phone records actually resulted in thwarting attacks, attacks that couldn't have been thwarted otherwise.
They have already given examples where the program was used to stop terrorist attacks in America and abroad.
What specific examples have been given? I'd like to discuss those and see if they really have revealed enough for us to draw such conclusions.
It's worth the exercise since someone in congress who was briefed on these things raised doubts about whether any terrorist attacks were thwarted.
But more importantly, doesn't Rev. 13:11-17 tell us of the final catastrophe coming upon the world, and the U.S.'s role in it, and doesn't the creation of a huge, secret surveillance state, as well as secret prisons, torture, being held indefinitely without charges, etc., fit in with that prophecy?
It is not the government that causes the destruction that is coming on the earth but rather the fanatical religion right who do not believe in separation of church and state. History from the Catholic church tells us that in the name of religion all the afore mention horrors happen.
The two-horned beast of Rev. 13 is the United States, and its speaking like a dragon is through its executive or legislative branches.
-
It has been said that no content of phone calls has been accessed without authorization by a court, to counter Snowden's claim that phone calls could be tapped at will. Who is telling the truth?
Years ago on a talk show, a caller who was the wife of a serviceman who lived on a base called in. As I recall, Bush had visited the base, and everything was locked down. She couldn't go to town or some such thing, and was perturbed about it. She was talking to a friend on the phone and said something about shooting the president or some other similar dumb comment. Shortly thereafter a secret service guy was at her door. She said something like, "I was kidding." The interview went on for two hours or so, at which point he said he was trying to decide whether to take this further.
I was left with the understanding that at that time we had the capability to tap everyone's phones without their knowledge, without probable cause of criminal activity, over an entire area. I therefore tend to think Snowden is correct on this one.
-
It has been said that no content of phone calls has been accessed without authorization by a court, to counter Snowden's claim that phone calls could be tapped at will. Who is telling the truth?
Years ago on a talk show, a caller who was the wife of a serviceman who lived on a base called in. As I recall, Bush had visited the base, and everything was locked down. She couldn't go to town or some such thing, and was perturbed about it. She was talking to a friend on the phone and said something about shooting the president or some other similar dumb comment. Shortly thereafter a secret service guy was at her door. She said something like, "I was kidding." The interview went on for two hours or so, at which point he said he was trying to decide whether to take this further.
I was left with the understanding that at that time we had the capability to tap everyone phones without their knowledge, without probable cause of criminal activity, over an entire area. I therefore tend to think Snowden is correct on this one.
Again it is naive to think the constitution is some kind of spiritual law of the land. Since the inception of the Constitution it has been interpreted and broken at will based on who interprets what. Since the constitution is not written by God we should understand that it is limited by mans acceptance or interpretation. In the very beginning from the very foundational words of the constitution "All men are created equal" it was a document written and based on interpretation, thus in the mist of it the slave was not considered human. I believe Snowden was wrong in what he did because he failed to realize the importance of human life and security over the words of the constitution, which is not a Document written under inspiration of God. I will state again if someone was to ignite an atomic bomb over the United States we would blame the Government for not doing all it could to avert the catastrophe. We are living in perilous times and the advances in technology make the world more dangerous than ever before -----The Patriot Act states that during national Emergencies the rights of the people can be suspended, I believe the Congress passed it after 9/11. -----One thing is for sure the Bible describes the danger coming from those who think they do God service. Even the Great Controversy identifies the culprit as Protestantism and Catholism as the eventual persecutors of the people. I will concure with you in that both Government and Religion are involved, the same as the betrayal of Christ was a compilation of religious and political.
-
In the very beginning from the very foundational words of the constitution "All men are created equal" it was a document written and based on interpretation, thus in the mist of it the slave was not considered human.
I think you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence.
I believe Snowden was wrong in what he did because he failed to realize the importance of human life and security over the words of the constitution, which is not a Document written under inspiration of God.
Regarding the importance of human life as well as the proper oversight we've been told by Obama et al that is being used, consider http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/drone-signature-strike_n_3421586.html. So while Obama claims there is oversight going on, in effect the oversight is ineffective.
In the name of security, we can murder innocent people, and then say, such casualties are inevitable in our fight against al Qaeda, an organization we helped to fund and worked with. I have problems with that.
It is hypocrisy to keep our innocent civilians from being murdered by murdering the innocent civilians of other nations.
Do you recall how Sister White identifies the repudiation of the First Amendment of the Constitution as being sort of the final sin of America? Then how can you not be concerned about the repudiation of the Fourth Amendment? The U.S. is speaking more like the Dragon than the Lamb in these matters.
The Patriot Act states that during national Emergencies the rights of the people can be suspended, I believe the Congress passed it after 9/11.
And what gave Congress the authority to suspend our constitutional rights? Please cite the article in the constitution that gives Congress such authority.
Our federal judiciary, executive branch, and legislature have no more authority than what the Constitution allows. That is a foundational principle and gets brought up in a wide variety of topics.
-
In the very beginning from the very foundational words of the constitution "All men are created equal" it was a document written and based on interpretation, thus in the mist of it the slave was not considered human.
I think you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. Oops, lol, that was funny, okay I got myself there.[/b]I believe Snowden was wrong in what he did because he failed to realize the importance of human life and security over the words of the constitution, which is not a Document written under inspiration of God.
Regarding the importance of human life as well as the proper oversight we've been told by Obama et al that is being used, consider http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/drone-signature-strike_n_3421586.html. So while Obama claims there is oversight going on, in effect the oversight is ineffective.
In the name of security, we can murder innocent people, and then say, such casualties are inevitable in our fight against al Qaeda, an organization we helped to fund and worked with. I have problems with that.
It is hypocrisy to keep our innocent civilians from being murdered by murdering the innocent civilians of other nations.
Do you recall how Sister White identifies the repudiation of the First Amendment of the Constitution as being sort of the final sin of America? Then how can you not be concerned about the repudiation of the Fourth Amendment? The U.S. is speaking more like the Dragon than the Lamb in these matters.
The Patriot Act states that during national Emergencies the rights of the people can be suspended, I believe the Congress passed it after 9/11.
And what gave Congress the authority to suspend our constitutional rights? Please cite the article in the constitution that gives Congress such authority.
Our federal judiciary, executive branch, and legislature have no more authority than what the Constitution allows. That is a foundational principle and gets brought up in a wide variety of topics.
Our government as far back as world war II, the imprisonment of Japanese Americans, have always done things contrary to the constitution to keep people safe. The question is not whether the Constitution allows but rather whether the good of the people is served. I took the time to go back and read the constitution again, only to realize again that the United States has for long in many circumstances disregarded the rule of law in one way or the other. Perhaps the better question is, does the constitution need an upgrade?
Obviously, before the current President, the government has long, according to the constitution, overstepped its boundaries, I think we will agree with that. The President takes an Oath of office to uphold the Constitution but both parties when their guy gets in office does everything in their power to trample it for money or greed. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" these words written long ago have been framed in the contextual understanding of those who read it. The 13Th amendment abolished slavery, but the true context of the constitution could not possibly have excluded them in the beginning (this is not meant to invoke race into the equation but just to give a glaring example of the implementation and interpretation of the Constitution).
Obviously when the Constitution was written the Atom bomb had not been invented nor the internet or various other advanced technologies. It could be surmised that the constitution does not even apply to those advancements. ---I would state that the constitution needs to be opened up by two third of the states votes but then we would come away with a vastly different constitution one I am not sure that would be better than the current one interpreted by the courts. ----Obviously the 200 year old document cannot cover all that is happening in the world today, or even account for the dangers that did not exist during its inception. The question is asked should the United States for the sake of freedom lose its freedom to the destructive devices of technology? When ever in history has one man been able to carry a device in his suitcase with the ability to destroy an entire city? The government is entrusted with the solem duty even outside the constitution of keeping its citizens free and safe this embodies the constitution at its highest level.
As far as Ellen White writting go, I am concerned because of what she has written about the end of time. However, I must put it in its proper context, the enemy is not the Government but rather the perverted religious leaders who follow Satan. The Great Controversy frames the end of time in the context of what evil Satanic filled Christians will do in the name of God. Interestingly we read her writting and think they apply to the United States Political parties when in fact she is framing through her writting it in the light of what people thinking they speak for God will do.
The drone strikes were done to American citizens who were inciting the world to destroy the united states through every mean necessary. Do you think for one minute the constitution was written and design to protect those people?
-
The fact of the matter is that it is the prosecution of bad guys that has resulted in some of the rights we have today. So yes, I do think that the U.S. Constitution was written for the bad guys too. I am uncomfortable with a few people acting as judge, jury, and executioner against American citizens, acting in secrecy.
What about Todashev, acquaintance of one of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers? Do you have any problems with his being shot 7 times, including in the back of the head, by one of the FBI agents who was interviewing him in his own home for 8 hours, for the alleged reason that he grabbed a knife, though now we are told that he was unarmed?
Are you comfortable with the death of James Watkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Watkins_%28Canadian_diplomat%29)? Why did they stoop so low as to lie about his death? Why did it take 16 years for the truth to come out?
It is now being reported that the conflicts in the Middle East are a regional sectarian war. If that is true, how do you feel about the U.S. government being involved in a war against a particular religion? Will they launch a war against another religion once the alleged presently targeted religion is neutralized?
As far as whether we should be concerned about leaders of state vs. leaders of church, here's a 2009 story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush. Bush cited Ezekiel's prophecies to try to convince Chirac to go to war in Iraq. So one question might be, how much are certain religious beliefs driving what is going on today regarding surveilance and war? I'd like to know.
-
The fact of the matter is that it is the prosecution of bad guys that has resulted in some of the rights we have today. So yes, I do think that the U.S. Constitution was written for the bad guys too. I am uncomfortable with a few people acting as judge, jury, and executioner against American citizens, acting in secrecy.
What about Todashev, acquaintance of one of the alleged Boston Marathon bombers? Do you have any problems with his being shot 7 times, including in the back of the head, by one of the FBI agents who was interviewing him in his own home for 8 hours, for the alleged reason that he grabbed a knife, though now we are told that he was unarmed?
Are you comfortable with the death of James Watkins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Watkins_%28Canadian_diplomat%29)? Why did they stoop so low as to lie about his death? Why did it take 16 years for the truth to come out?
It is now being reported that the conflicts in the Middle East are a regional sectarian war. If that is true, how do you feel about the U.S. government being involved in a war against a particular religion? Will they launch a war against another religion once the alleged presently targeted religion is neutralized?
As far as whether we should be concerned about leaders of state vs. leaders of church, here's a 2009 story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush. Bush cited Ezekiel's prophecies to try to convince Chirac to go to war in Iraq. So one question might be, how much are certain religious beliefs driving what is going on today regarding surveillance and war? I'd like to know.
I believe we can both be right in this discussion when we take it in the context of good verses evil. What I mean is we cannot have good without evil in this world. You will cite all the injustices that are done to good people and I on the other hand can site good things that have happen because of the governments involvement, even when it was considered against the constitution. I also believe what we are discussing is what many in positions of power must discus regularly. I have told you that I believe for sometime the government has been working outside the constraints of the constitution and what we are seeing is not an anomaly. The American people have been lied to throughout the last fifty or so years, and I believe that a greater percentage of people in power believe that it is an necessity evil to preserve the country.
Interestingly this same mind set also takes place in the church when it comes to bible compliance. The bible being a holy book is not complied with so how could you think even for a second that the constitution would be reverenced or kept? There is no promise of security written in the constitution it is only as valid as the individuals morals that take the oath (government officials). I told you that technology makes it a necessity that what people consider as their rights will of a necessity be invaded if the country is to be kept safe, many people find that hard to except but none the less it is a true statement. As the world gets smaller because of technology it will of necessity also become more intrusive. When I was in the service during the late seventies the Government was concerned at that time of the ability of smaller and smaller groups of people to obtain weapons of mass destruction (defined as the ability to kill multiple thousands at one time).
I am concerned about the future the same as you, however, I try to think like people who do not know God as we know him. I see the injustices that have take place as you have supplied the evidence, those things are against the law so I have no argument with them. My entire argument is that for people who think they are in charge of their survival it makes since to have surveillance on everyone. I don't think the Government is evil simply because it is the Government. I also believe that the rule of law does not allways mean it is right. Apparently there are those in Government that have the same mind set as myself.
The predictions of the Bible and spirit of prophecy shall come true, the bad and the good, "And this gospel shall be preached into all the world and then the end shall come".
-
If this guy was really concerned about freedom, how could he go to China, Russia and the latest reported destination is Cuba? At one point it would seem that you could see there is really something wrong with this picture.
-
There is definitely something wrong with this picture, I agree.
The bastion of freedom, the Protestant government of the United States, has filed charges against someone for exposing violations of the 9th commandment, and revoked his passport. Meanwhile, there has been no press conference announcing the sacking of Clapper who admitted to lying under oath to Congress. And there has been no press conference announcing charges against hackers working for U.S. security or intelligence entities. One has to ask, Why? Have hacking and lying under oath all of a sudden become legal?
Acts 28:19 But when the Jews spake against it, I was constrained to appeal unto Caesar; not that I had ought to accuse my nation of.
Did Paul do wrong by appealing to the profligate, degenerate, fiend Nero rather than to the courts of his own people, the once chosen people of God, to whom were entrusted the Scriptures, the prophecies of the Messiah, the covenants, etc.? I think it sounds weird to appeal to Nero, but that's what Paul did.
"The time is soon coming when God's people, because of persecution, will be scattered in many countries. Those who have received an all-round education will have the advantage where they are" (LDE 152).
Which countries do you think we might be scattered in?
One thing this situation does expose is the fact that there aren't many countries in the world that will buck the United States. And that is relevant in light of the predictions of Rev. 13.
-
I am writting your from work so I don't have my information with me. Paul was sent to Caesar as a spokes person to the heathen, I am paraphrasing what I read in Patriots and Prophets. Our Government, as all the Governments of the world today constantly lie to the people, that has become an exceptable part of governing in the times we live. Surely you are not trying to imply that all this is new. The civil Governments do not operate under the restriction that Christians do. The only thing that has kept the Governments of the world restrained is the Holy Spirit working through men of God in an ungodly world.
What you don't seem to understand is that if you were to prosecute Clapper you would have to indict the entire congress to include Judges and the President. The Governments of the entire world all work on a slidding scale when it comes to truthfulness to its people, that is what Governing is all about in a secular world.
You must remember that we do not work and live in a theocracy but rather a republic. The people of this nation and the nations of the world have less to fear from all the secular groups in the world than with the Christians. This indignation and religious fervor for truth scares me more than anything because it does not match actions. When the religious leaders of the world are allowed sway and power the amount of carnage will reach to heaven.
-
1) Paul appealed to Caesar because if he hadn't, he could have been killed. He sought protection from the Romans because he did not trust his own people. Jews of his day could easily have cast dispersion on him for doing so.
2) Lying is unacceptable, says the Sovereign of the universe, who is cited in the Pledge of Allegiance and alluded to in the Declaration of Independence.
3) "What you don't seem to understand is that if you were to prosecute Clapper you would have to indict the entire congress to include Judges and the President."
So because someone else has dared lie when testifying under oath, we can never again require someone to testify truthfully under oath again? This sort of logic would eventually lead to complete and total anarchy. As soon as enough people have committed some sort of wickedness, then we could never punish that sort of wickedness again.
4) "You must remember that we do not work and live in a theocracy but rather a republic."
Of course, but it isn't just any sort of republic. It's a Protestant republic. And let's remember that in Rom. 13 it is clear that God has entrusted the governments of this world with the responsibility of enforcing the second table of the Decalog as it pertains to outward actions. Certainly perjury is something that non-theocracies can punish.
Remember the true philosophy of history? God tests each nation to see if they will follow His laws or not. When their iniquity reaches a certain level, they fall, and another takes their place. Non-theocracies are not exempt.
5) "The people of this nation and the nations of the world have less to fear from all the secular groups in the world than with the Christians."
Remember the 2009 story I cited earlier about Bush asking Chirac to invade Iraq based on Ezekiel's prophecy? How do you know that the surveilance state is not a manifestation of just what you are describing?
It is possible that there is some sort of secret alliance behind the scenes with the goal of controlling the entire world and having the papacy be the spiritual head of it all. If Reagan could enter into a secret alliance with the Vatican to topple communism, and we all learn about it after the fact, such a secret alliance is certainly possible.
6) Is America speaking like a lamb or like a dragon right now?
-
1) Paul appealed to Caesar because if he hadn't, he could have been killed. He sought protection from the Romans because he did not trust his own people. Jews of his day could easily have cast dispersion on him for doing so.
2) Lying is unacceptable, says the Sovereign of the universe, who is cited in the Pledge of Allegiance and alluded to in the Declaration of Independence.
3) "What you don't seem to understand is that if you were to prosecute Clapper you would have to indict the entire congress to include Judges and the President."
So because someone else has dared lie when testifying under oath, we can never again require someone to testify truthfully under oath again? This sort of logic would eventually lead to complete and total anarchy. As soon as enough people have committed some sort of wickedness, then we could never punish that sort of wickedness again.
4) "You must remember that we do not work and live in a theocracy but rather a republic."
Of course, but it isn't just any sort of republic. It's a Protestant republic. And let's remember that in Rom. 13 it is clear that God has entrusted the governments of this world with the responsibility of enforcing the second table of the Decalog as it pertains to outward actions. Certainly perjury is something that non-theocracies can punish.
Remember the true philosophy of history? God tests each nation to see if they will follow His laws or not. When their iniquity reaches a certain level, they fall, and another takes their place. Non-theocracies are not exempt.
5) "The people of this nation and the nations of the world have less to fear from all the secular groups in the world than with the Christians."
Remember the 2009 story I cited earlier about Bush asking Chirac to invade Iraq based on Ezekiel's prophecy? How do you know that the surveilance state is not a manifestation of just what you are describing?
It is possible that there is some sort of secret alliance behind the scenes with the goal of controlling the entire world and having the papacy be the spiritual head of it all. If Reagan could enter into a secret alliance with the Vatican to topple communism, and we all learn about it after the fact, such a secret alliance is certainly possible.
6) Is America speaking like a lamb or like a dragon right now?
We often crouch things in a religious context, sometimes when it does not apply. I don't believe the United States is speaking like a dragon now. I do believe we are on the cusp of the time when God said "this message shall be preached into all the world and then the end shall come".
As far as Paul seeking protection from Rome, I don't believe that was the case, going to Rome would seal his death for certain.
There are those who live a Christ life and then there is the world who have no such standards. The world is not just getting bad now, it has been on the wrong side of the truth for thousands of years. God imposed himself on humanity to preserve the world for his purposes. The end of time will come when all have been given an opportunity to except or reject him.
The events that are happening now are a prelude to when this world shall be lightened with the knowledge of God. Jesus came at a time when the world was in one of the worst states as far as religion stands. But when the world thinks they are enlightened with the truth, after they have rejected the truth, then shall the earth be covered in darkness.
Satan knows that the end of time is at hand and he is stirring the pot to enrage and inflame the nations. Snowden going to China and Russia and even Cuba as an alternative is crazy. Obviously his convictions are not strong enough to put into action when threatened. The countries he is fleeing to have the most repressive governments in the world.
-
I don't believe the United States is speaking like a dragon now.
Satan is a liar and the father of it. If lying with impunity and draconian surveilance doesn't qualify as dragon-like, what would?
As far as Paul seeking protection from Rome, I don't believe that was the case, going to Rome would seal his death for certain.
Speaking of Paul's appeal to Caesar: "Thus it was that once more, because of hatred born of bigotry and self-righteousness, a servant of God was driven to turn for protection to the heathen" (AA 430).
-
From the 2012 article "The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)" (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/):
Sitting in a restaurant not far from NSA headquarters, the place where he spent nearly 40 years of his life, Binney held his thumb and forefinger close together. “We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state,” he says.
An example of how the system can and allegedly has gone awry is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Mayfield.
-
From "Snowden made the right call when he fled the U.S." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/daniel-ellsberg-nsa-leaker-snowden-made-the-right-call/2013/07/07/0b46d96c-e5b7-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html) in the Washington Post. Note particularly the last paragraph quoted:
Many people compare Edward Snowden to me unfavorably for leaving the country and seeking asylum, rather than facing trial as I did. I don’t agree. The country I stayed in was a different America, a long time ago.
After the New York Times had been enjoined from publishing the Pentagon Papers — on June 15, 1971, the first prior restraint on a newspaper in U.S. history — and I had given another copy to The Post (which would also be enjoined), I went underground with my wife, Patricia, for 13 days. My purpose (quite like Snowden’s in flying to Hong Kong) was to elude surveillance while I was arranging — with the crucial help of a number of others, still unknown to the FBI — to distribute the Pentagon Papers sequentially to 17 other newspapers, in the face of two more injunctions. The last three days of that period was in defiance of an arrest order: I was, like Snowden now, a “fugitive from justice.”
Yet when I surrendered to arrest in Boston, having given out my last copies of the papers the night before, I was released on personal recognizance bond the same day. Later, when my charges were increased from the original three counts to 12, carrying a possible 115-year sentence, my bond was increased to $50,000. But for the whole two years I was under indictment, I was free to speak to the media and at rallies and public lectures. I was, after all, part of a movement against an ongoing war. Helping to end that war was my preeminent concern. I couldn’t have done that abroad, and leaving the country never entered my mind.
There is no chance that experience could be reproduced today, let alone that a trial could be terminated by the revelation of White House actions against a defendant that were clearly criminal in Richard Nixon’s era — and figured in his resignation in the face of impeachment — but are today all regarded as legal (including an attempt to “incapacitate me totally”).
So what was clearly criminal in Nixon's day is now regarded as legal, including total incapacitation, which I assume means assassination? I find this troubling.
-
We saw on TV a letter sent from the American embassies in many countries to the various governments telling these governments to arrest Snowden and turn him over to the United States if he should appear in their countries. The letters were understood as threats by the various countries and therefore the reason so many countries in the western world hesitated aiding Snowden.
Some issued declarations they were not able to accept him as a refugee before he appears on their soil. Then he would be treated as any other refugee whose life is in danger.