Posted on 11/08/2022 12:33:08 AM PST by Jonty30
While we agree that by and large, most people who choose to serve within the US military to defend America have the very best intentions in mind, we had asked within an ANP story on November 7th if the Pentagon itself had been compromised and was being fully controlled by globalists and no long loyal to President Trump and America.
Giving several recent examples of actions taken or words spoken by high ranking members of the military to help support our argument, we’ll take a look today within this story in another direction that helps to make that argument with a sourced and linked look at satanism within the US military and it’s complete acceptance by some of the ‘top brass’ and the US government.
And while we still believe that most Americans within our branches of service really do have the best intentions of defending our nation, and we thank each and every US Veteran and active duty service member in America for their service to our country, as we see within this story, the federal government has stated that the 1st Amendment protects the rights of satanists to be in the military and practice their ‘religion’, leading to what some have called the satanic subversion of the US military.
(Excerpt) Read more at exposingsatanism.org ...
It does explain a lot, including the move towards socialism.
Investigate the military spouses of people like Jocelyn Benson and sundry others.
Milley still is pushing woke.
I am definitely wondering about him.
Peter Strzok, when he was testifying before Congress, had what I could only call a Satanic smirk to him with his pursed lips that gave the impression it the corruption was a game to him.
This article is 4 years old. It would be interesting to see what happened during the last 4 years which we know is worse—much worse—than any time before it.
I just learned about it tonight, so it is new to me and probably to many of us. I think we can measure their estimation of it being unstoppable when they went full government and corporate fascist support for genderism and transgenderism in the military.
He looked like a demon to me.
this is wild, and here is why:
1. The Biil of Rights calls out ‘freedom of religion’ for ALL American citizens, period.
2.. Anybody who holds to a DIFFERENT ‘religion’, other than Christianity, amd is a citizen, somebody always stands p and proclaims, “we gotta stop that!”
3. Unbeknownst to some, in 2007, the V.A. was sued by a non-Christian religious group , because the V.A. refused their request to have their religious zymbol on a fallen xecorated Army sergeant’s V.A. funded headstone.
4. It has long been witnessed, that Christians will label anything, of any other religious non-Christian group, as ‘satanic’.
5. There have been many U.S. veterans, both alive and dead, sincethe Vietnam War, who were non-Chriztian, and have put their life on the line, defending everybody’s constigutional religious right.
6. The military chaplains’ manuals have contained chapters defining non-Christian religions, and their rites of worship,, since 1976.
7. Saying all that, I will end with this:
“Why do Christians think,, as shown by their actions and deeds, believe that THEY are the ONLY ones, whoo have the right to call the 1st Amendment, ‘their’s’, while attempting to deny other non-Christian religious groups, their same constitutional right?”
It may be pervasive and even powerful, or it might be just a scattering of little secret societies lurking in the shadows.
Without some comprehensive effort from leadership to root out strange "clubs" in the military we will never know. And, of course, any effort to identify bad groups could quickly turn into a political witch hunt to eradicate Christian and/or conservative organizations by secular and Leftist members of leadership.
I don’t. If it is Satanic, I call it Satanic.
I fully recognize the right of anybody to believe whatever they want, but the Bill of Rights and the Constitution cannot survive an absolutist position of people believing whatever they want.
Do you understand Hegelian Dialectics?
Basically, it’s where you take the end result of what you seek and then you work backwards to where you are in order to create the steps to get what you want.
For example, Big Tech wants to control free speech, so how do you do that? You do that by going over the top of ensuring that those who support free speech don’t have it, so they have to give way to demand the government act to protect them. Once there is mass support for the government to act, Big Tech bribes the politicians to create regulations that favour them and their leftist outlook on life. Now, you have where liberal have unfettered free speech, but non-liberals are still limited in their ability to express themselves.
The left, to remove Constitutional protections on religion, will fund religion that does terrible things in society, like Satanism, so we end up demanding limitations on religion so that the left can lobby the government to put limitations that they favour, which is basically limitations on Christianity.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution can only survive when everybody is practicing it in good will. But when one side is using the freedoms within the Bill of Rights and Constitution to purposefully bring disrepute upon those freedoms, those freedoms become untenable in the long run.
That’s the intent.
The left uses Hegelian dialectics to make the arguement as to why their positions are right.
1. To make the argument that multiculturalism and diversity must be maintained, as opposed to merit, they purposefull drive out white people from the economy in order to impoverishment so white people end up demanding protection from discrimination.
2. To create the argument that limitations on free speech must be created, they create a culture that wants to extinguish white people completely.
Everything the left does to create their arguments involve over the top acts of evil, so those being affected will give themselves over to the left for protection.
Freeper “tang-soo” posted the following on 10/28/2022:
“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.” — Theodore Dalrymple”
There is nothing more dangerous than a busload of screaming misguided half-Christians.
Whether we like it or not, freedom--of worship or speech--means tolerating those opinions and beliefs we don't like. Our only redress is the application of the law to their actions (including incitement to action).
Read ‘1984’. Orwell nails it.
What are you saying/implying/meaning about freedom of speech and freedom of religion?
Why do you think that the social media was throwing off conservative Christianss and banning them when they supported conservative Christian positions?
Because they wanted conservatives to tell the government to do something. When the government would write the regulations that supposedly protected conservative Christians, Big Tech would cooperate with government to write the regulations that supposedly protects all points of view, but only in a way that a liberal approves of. |
Same thing with religion. Oh, you want protection of religion? Let’s bring out Satanists who will sacrifice in the open on Hallowe’en, in the name of religion. Then when we demand the government puts limits on that kind of activity, those with vested interests in putting limitations on religion will then cooperate with government to create the regulations that stop animal sacrifice on main street every Hallowe’en, but then the grand bargain will be that Christians must accept some limitations in how they can exercise their faith.
By taking our freedoms and driving those freedoms, in the supposed names of the freedom, to the point of evil and ridiculous, the left achieves its aim of chipping away at those freedoms.
Another example is the pornographic children books in public and school libraries, in the name of freedom of information.
They want people to demand limits on freedom of information in the name of decency. Guess what the left considers indecent?
The Bible.
So, guess what gets limitated in the grand bargain of putting limits on information, in the name of decency? You’ll never guess, I’m sure.
I'll never guess, you're sure?
Are you being facetious?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.