Thursday, June 1, 2017

***Prophetic Messages From The Lord: 31 May 2017***

Cryptfire7 hours ago (edited)

I can't verify if the message of the video is from the Lord.. but.. there are similar scriptures with similar messages LOOK!!!

The following verses show the waiting people of God will be glorified, vindicated, and honored in plain view of all people.
(Isaiah 49:22-23) "Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and their queens thy nursing mothers: they shall bow down to thee with their face toward the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD: for they shall not be ashamed that wait for me."

The following verses show there will be a spiritual baby boom, of new converts, or lukewarm christians that were not previously ready. I think they will suffer a lot in the tribulation.
(Isaiah 66:7-8) "Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children."

Don't the above verses sound a lot like revelation 12?
Not to mention the Sept 23, 2017 sign in the sky!
(Revelation 12:1-5) "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

Isaiah is just FILLED with prophecy about this kinda stuff.. quite likely what is spoken about in many many places of Isaiah could possibly be in fact similar to what is described in the video.. check out these verses:
I think many people overlook these prophecies being for us, because they are labeled 'Israel'.. but don't forget that in the new testament gentile believers have become part of Israel by faith.
 2  
at

Jordan Has A Hater! - Exposing the Dark Journalist's Bad Journalism - Wh...

Published on May 31, 2017

Too much Haterade going around. Pretty sure they're sippin' on the GMO stuff.
at

5.31 - Aerospace Exec Spills the Alien Beans, Trump Tweets & Civil War i...

Published on May 31, 2017

May 31st 2017 Illusion Destroying Report

Update: A better explanation has come my way for the tweet, I'll discuss in next news-ey video.

Today's Sources
CNN: "Source: Comey to testify publicly about Trump confrontations" - https://goo.gl/L65IQd
FoxNews: "House Intelligence Committee sends subpoenas to intel agencies" - https://goo.gl/F0G7Tk
Huffington Post: "Aerospace Executive ‘Absolutely Convinced’ There Are Aliens On Earth" - https://goo.gl/K6d718
YourNewsWire: "Netflix Documentary Links John Podesta To Pedophile Ring" - https://goo.gl/1OMCie

_______________
Patreon - https://www.patreon.com/jordansather
Paypal - https://www.paypal.me/JordanSather
Amazon Affiliate Link (support me by purchasing whatever you normally do on Amazon, just through this link. No cost to you!) -https://goo.gl/zyhHMw
https://shop.spreadshirt.com/Destroyi...
DTI Twitter: https://twitter.com/DestroyIllusion
DTI Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/destroyingth...
My FB: https://www.facebook.com/jordan.sather.9
at

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Leftists Want Their Enemies Dead

JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Leftists Want Their Enemies Dead

  BY 51 COMMENTS
Barbarism is so hot right now. My latest in PJ Media:
Should neo-Nazis be allowed to use gym facilities?
It’s an odd question, but it has larger implications for the future of conservatives in the public square, and for America’s prospects of staving off a new civil war.
The question about neo-Nazis and the gym came up recently when Georgetown University professor Christine Fair happened upon neo-Nazi Richard Spencer, who is not me, at a gym and began berating him. The gym then revoked Richard Spencer’s membership.
I have no regard for Richard Spencer, as often as I am confused with him: he has more than once demanded that I reveal my “real” name, as he is convinced that I am secretly a Jew who has changed my name to fool good white folks like him. He has become notorious for openly espousing a white nationalism that most people would have rather remained a relic of history.
But does that mean he can’t even use gym facilities that he paid for, and in which he wasn’t bothering anyone?
I have nothing but disgust for Richard Spencer, but I have even greater disgust for Christine Fair, who in this incident showed herself to be more of a Nazi than Richard Spencer could ever hope to be.
Like the Nazis, Christine Fair wants those whom she hates destroyed, full stop. Just destroyed. She doesn’t want them to be able to speak in public. She doesn’t want them to be able to hold memberships in gyms. She doesn’t want them to be allowed to live in the city she lives in. She told Richard, among other things: “I find your presence in this gym to be unacceptable, your presence in this town to be unacceptable”.
Is there anything that Christine Fair thinks Richard Spencer ought to be allowed to do? Does she find his breathing unacceptable?
Fair’s berating of Richard Spencer, and getting him kicked out of his gym, was quintessentially Nazi behavior, and was in direct contradiction to the principles that make a society free.
While Richard Spencer is indeed a Nazi, albeit in a different way from how Fair is one, there is no excuse for what she did. As long as he was not breaking any laws, he had as much right to be in that gym as Christine Fair has.
Christine Fair has apparently not reflected upon the precedent she is setting, or on the possibility, as remote as it is, that one day her views could be out of favor, and she could find herself getting poisoned, and prevented from speaking by riots, andscreamed at by campus fascists, and driven out of gyms, and the like, and that a healthier and freer society allows for the freedom of expression and doesn’t persecute or hound those whose ideas are unpopular or even unarguably obnoxious.
Instead, she believes we need ideological purity tests even for gym memberships. Once the precedent is set that one must hold a certain set of beliefs and shun others in order to be able to work out at the gym, the required beliefs could shift, and any individual or group could be victimized.
This is the road to totalitarianism, and we’re racing down it.
Another example of the Left’s determination to destroy utterly everyone who opposes it is the recent experience of Terry Jones, the infamous Qur’an-burning pastor. I am not a supporter of Terry Jones; I oppose burning books. I believe in free speech and free discourse. The thuggish, authoritarian Left shuts down opposing views and censors those whom it hates. Burning books is the kind of thing they do, if not literally, then by shutting down, smearing, and defaming those whom they hate. I am not inclined to emulate them.
All that said, however, Terry Jones lives in a nation that has the First Amendment in its Constitution. It is not illegal for him to dislike Islam or to burn Qur’ans. But in early February, the Washington Post wrote a gleeful story about how Jones had been working as an Uber driver, but had been fired by Uber after the Post reporter, a Muslim named Faiz Siddiqui, called Uber and alerted them to who Jones was.
So now your Uber driver has to love Islam. If he doesn’t appreciate Islam sufficiently, he could be fired.
What does loving Islam have to do with driving for Uber? About as much as being a neo-Nazi has to do with holding a gym membership. Is it acceptable for your plumber to take a dim view of Buddhism?
The Left is becoming so totalitarian, so inhospitable to the slightest dissent, that even when a critic of Islam is doing something that has nothing to do with Islam, Leftists move to shut him down. Jones had to close down a french fry stand he was running in a Florida mall, and he can’t drive for Uber. What can he do? The Left just wants him dead — that’s all.
Similarly, when I was scheduled to speak several years ago at an education conference that had nothing to do with Islam, Christine Fair’s colleague Nathan Lean of Georgetown University (who has several times posted a link on Twitter to what he thinks is my home address, in an obvious attempt to get me killed by jihadis and/or frighten me into silence) successfully got the host, a Catholic bishop, to cancel the event because of my work on Islam, even though Islam had nothing to do with what I was set to discuss. (The event was held at another location, and I spoke as planned.)…
Read the rest here.
Scotland: Muslim says Manchester jihad massacre was "inevitable consequence of UK policy towards Muslims"
Hugh Fitzgerald: Olivier Roy, “One of France’s Top Experts On Islamic Terrorism” (Part II)
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousStumbleUponDiasporaEmailPrint
at

Hugh Fitzgerald: Olivier Roy, “One of France’s Top Experts On Islamic Terrorism” (Part II)

JIHAD WATCH
Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Hugh Fitzgerald: Olivier Roy, “One of France’s Top Experts On Islamic Terrorism” (Part II)

  BY 26 COMMENTS
In his recent book “Jihad and Death: The Global Appeal of Islamic State,” Roy argues that about 70 percent of these young people have scant knowledge of Islam, and suggests they are “radical” before even choosing Islam. He dubs them “born again Muslims” who lead libertine lives before their sudden conversion to violent fundamentalism. — Haaretz
It’s hard to know where to begin with this. Who decides what constitutes “scant knowledge of Islam”? One would like to see what questions were asked to determine this. Were those interviewing the “young people” (a cohort, one assumes, consisting of those who had gone to join the Islamic State and returned) Muslims themselves, who might have a stake in downplaying the “Islamic” knowledge of those they question? Were these ignorant Muslims unaware of the 109 Jihad verses? Some of them? All of them? And what constitutes leading “libertine lives”? Drinking alcohol? Having premarital sex? Smoking marijuana? Would indulging in only one of those Western vices, like Salman Abedi with his occasional cannabis, be enough for someone to feel the need to atone by becoming a shahid? And when Roy says these Islamic terrorists were “radical” before “even choosing Islam,” why was it, does he think, that Islam was chosen, why did Islam turn out to be the perfect fit, the right vehicle, for those “radicals” who were hellbent on aggression and destruction, if Islam, so we are often told, preaches peace and tolerance?
As for leading “libertine lives,” it is true that some Muslim terrorists, before “returning to Islam,” seem to have been inattentive to its rules, and indulged in Western “decadence” by drinking alcohol, or having premarital sex, or smoking marijuana. As has been well documented, some of those who re-embrace Islam after having fallen away may do so with a fanaticism that can be explained as a kind of atonement for ever having violated the rules on Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong. But not all Muslim terrorists follow Olivier Roy’s own “narrative”; many had always been unbending in their faith, and were not atoning for anything when they acted on their beliefs and became Jihadists. They were simply carrying out what the Qur’an commanded. And Salman Abedi had always been one of the latter: a  devout Muslim, from a very devout family, and a hafiz to boot.
“It’s the Islamification of radicalism that we need to investigate, not the radicalization of Islam,” Roy says, begging the question of why radical youths would choose violent fundamentalist Islam over other destructive creeds to engage in terrorism.
Islam does not need to be “radicalized” nor radicals “Islamized” for Muslims to become terrorists. The Qur’an, hadith, and sira supply all the “radicalization” — that is, the inculcated violence and aggression toward Infidels — that “radicals” require. But there is not a mainstream Islam and another, quite different, “radicalized” Islam. The same texts and teachings are to be found in mainstream mosques and madrasas as in those some describe as preaching, or teaching, a “radicalized” Islam. There may be differences in emphasis and tone in an imam’s khutba, but not in the essence of the message, which is to be found in the same Qur’an, in same Hadith and sira, that all Muslims read. The Muslim terrorist is not violating, but following, the commands, and the great example, of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
These “new radicals” embrace the Islamic State’s narrative as it’s the only radical narrative available in the “global market of fundamentalist ideologies,” Roy says. “In the past they would have been drawn, for example, to far-left political extremism.” Half of violent jihadis in France, Germany and the United States also have criminal records for petty crime, just like Abedi, who appears to have been radicalized without the involvement of the local mosque or religious community, an element that mirrors patterns in the rest of Europe.
According to Olivier Roy, these young Muslims choose the Islamic State’s “narrative” just because it’s the only radical one available. In the past, he says they might have been drawn to “far-left extremism.” Well, there is an Islamic past, some 1400 years of it, easily available for study, and Roy might discover that numerous Muslims during all those centuries behaved very much like the “Islamized” radicals today, conducting Jihad through whatever means, including especially violence, proved most effective, and determined to continue that Jihad until Infidels were subjugated, and were converted, or killed, or agreed to pay the Jizyah. Muslims were always required to conduct Jihad, a duty which does not end until Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere. For a long time Muslims were successful in their conquests, but Europe eventually surpassed them in military technology and strength. The European counterattack lasted for roughly the last two centuries (since Napoleon entered Egypt in 1798), and led, among other developments deemed disastrous by Muslims, to the end of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924.  But in recent decades, several factors have made possible a renewed campaign against the West by aggressive Jihadists.
The first factor is that Muslim countries became immensely rich from the sale of oil. They have been the recipients of over $25 trillion dollars in oil revenues since 1973 alone, money which has helped fund the worldwide building of mosques and madrassas, of Islamic community centers, and of subsidies to an army of Muslim missionaries, as well as paying for apologists and propagandists for Islam, by no means all of them Muslim. And that money has also come in useful for the bribing of political figures, diplomats, representatives at the U.N., who have helped distract attention from what has been rightly labeled, by Robert Spencer, the Stealth Jihad.
The second factor has been the large-scale immigration of Muslims to the West, that is, of people who have been inculcated to be permanently hostile to their Infidel hosts. There are now close to 50 million Muslims in Europe, behind borders that they have always been taught to regard as enemy lines. Very few are integrating into their host societies. Very many are now a permanent threat to those whose lands they have so thoughtlessly been allowed to share.
The third factor is technology — the advances, from cell phones to the Internet, from satellite television to YouTube videos, that have made spreading the full message of Islam all over the world much easier. By now no Muslim can claim ignorance of his duties, both of Jihad and of What Is Commanded and What Is Forbidden. The Internet presents Muslims with the same access everywhere to materials — not just the main texts of Qur’an, hadith, and sira, but also the works of the historians of Islam, the commentators on the Qur’an, the most authoritative hadith scholars, those who today, like Yusuf al-Qaradawi, provide counsel and answer the questions of Believers — all that once to be found only in good-sized mosques and madrasas and libraries, but now only requires a click or two on the Internet. The effect of money, migrants, and technology helps explain why non-Muslims in the West have been insufficiently alarmed about Islam (all those well-paid apologists and propagandists have successfully silenced or misrepresented thoughtful critics as “Islamophobes”), why campaigns of conversions, now so well-funded, meet with success among non-Muslims, of the kind who desperately need, and find that Islam provides, an Instant Bruvverhood, and a Complete Regulation of Life.
Finally, the tens of thousands of mosques and madrasas that have been  built in the West with oil money help explain why those young Muslims who may indulge in an interlude of Western decadence return, with a vengeance, to Islam. But let’s be clear: not all terrorists are ex-libertines atoning for their libertinage. Some, like Abedi himself, do not fit Olivier Roy’s template at all — which has not prevented him from claiming otherwise. Abedi was always a devout Muslim, and had nothing, from an Islamic point of view, save possibly for a few intermittent puffs of cannabis, to atone for.
According to Roy, while ultraconservative Salafi Islam is certainly a problem − its followers object to the basic values underpinning a tolerant and secular Western society − it shouldn’t be conflated with violent extremism. And when evaluating the origins of young men like Abedi, one shouldn’t overstate the role of Muslim revanchism in the developing world, a political strand feeding on the West’s colonial legacy and interventionism in the Middle East.
It is not “Salafi” Islam alone whose “followers object to the basic values underpinning a tolerant and secular Western society,” but rather, the followers of mainstream Islam itself. Islam is not tolerant, Islam does not admit of any equivalent to “post-Christian” secularism. In what Islamic country are the rights to full equality of non-Muslims, women, homosexuals  recognized? In what Muslim — not just “Salafi” — country, is there anything like freedom of religion and of speech, the “basic values underpinning a tolerant and secular Western society”?
In one respect Roy is certainly right, however, in wanting to deemphasize Muslim resentment over the West’s “colonial legacy” as a cause of terrorism. He knows, as a Frenchman, how little of a “colonial legacy” there was to be resented by Muslim Arabs, for only in Algeria was there a “colony” in the accepted sense of that word. The four Arab territories that were previously guided by European mandatory authorities to statehood — Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria — were never colonies. Nowhere on the Arabian peninsula was there a single European colony. In Egypt, Lord Cromer’s men ran the civil service from 1882 to 1922, but Egypt was not a British colony. In North Africa, there was no wholesale transfer of French “colons” (colonists) into Morocco and Tunisia, as occurred in Algeria. Olivier Roy minimizes the “colonial legacy” correctly, but for the wrong reason. It is because he seeks his explanation for Muslim terrorism neither in the ideology of Islam, nor in the history of Muslim encounters with, and resentment against, the West, but in the psychology of individual Muslims who, according to Roy, have been “radicalized” and now seek to give their “radicalization” an Islamic cover and coherence.
“Had he been concerned about acts of Western imperialism, he would have mentioned the British attack in Libya in 2012, making his act political in one way or another,” Roy says.
Abedi was very much part of the British youth culture he attacked, “he killed himself as part of that society,” Roy says from his office in Florence, where he’s a professor at the European University Institute. “Had he been imbued with Islamic culture and bent toward the ambition of establishing an Islamic state in the Middle East, he would have probably not have known about pop singer Ariana Grande,” Roy notes, adding that “he would have traveled to Syria or Libya instead.”
Roy is wrong. Abedi was not, as Roy claims, “very much part of the British youth culture he attacked.” Nor was he confused, betwixt and between Islam and Western secularism. He was indeed “imbued with Islamic culture.” He was a hafiz, that is, someone who had memorized the entire Qur’an. He was by all accounts devout, never tempted to indulge in Western “decadence” other than a bit of marijuana. He was a loyal son in a family whose paterfamilias had been involved, back in Libya, with a group that had links to Al-Qaeda. He chose to attack the Manchester concert because it was both an easy and a high-value target, with more than ten thousand Infidels (the venue could hold 21,000) gathered conveniently in one place. Roy thinks that “if he were imbued with Islamic culture,” then he “would have travelled to Syria or Libya instead.” Nonsense. Abedi knew that his attack on that high-value target in Manchester would and did receive far more attention than any attack in the Middle East would have been given. In Syria or Libya, he would have been just one more Islamic State fighter, at a time when those ISIS fighters are on the run, under withering attack in Syria and Iraq and Libya, faced with massive defections of fighters. Abedi’s attack in Manchester was an atrocity, but it was also, from his point of view, a success, which Olivier Roy refuses to concede (he says it was “of little strategic value”): it did indeed “strike terror” in the hearts of Infidels. And Abedi did not “kill himself,” but died ashahid, a martyr for Islam.
If comments by French Interior Minister Gérard Collomb are confirmed, Abedi will join the long list of returning jihadis who have struck in Europe after fighting in Syria. But Roy also notes some positive news: Hundreds of foreign fighters from Europe are seeking a safe return to Europe by turning themselves in to their embassies in Turkey, according to the Italian press.
“This means they don’t have the suicidal instincts characterizing terrorists like Abedi,” Roy says, though he warns that the “hegemony of secularism” and the rejection of “all forms of religiosity” in the West have created a spiritual vacuum that can be a breeding ground for fundamentalism.
Hundreds of Muslims who left Europe to join the Islamic State are now trying to return to the European countries they left. They are fleeing in fear both of attacks by Infidel bombs, and even more, of being killed by the most fanatical members of IS fanatics, who have been killing their own fighters for not fighting fiercely enough, or in some cases not fighting at all. Roy seems to believe that these returnees will be no threat once back in Europe. But in fleeing the Islamic State, have they ceased to believe in violent Jihad? Isn’t it possible that, if let back into the European countries they left, they might now wish to atone for their previous “cowardice” in fleeing the Islamic State, and possibly engage in terrorist acts at home? Or are we expected to believe that in fleeing from the Islamic State they have also abandoned, and forever, their Islamic faith, and their desire to kill Infidels? They may no longer be willing to die as shahids, but that doesn’t mean they are no longer dangerous. Their return to Europe is not, pace Olivier Roy, “positive news.” They can still attack Infidels in the countries to which they are allowed to return, can still encourage other Muslims to fight the Infidels in Europe, while dissuading them from going off to join the Islamic State whose prospects in the Middle East are now so grim. These are all unpleasant possibilities, but perfectly plausible. Plausible to all of us, that is, except for Olivier Roy.
Robert Spencer in PJ Media: Leftists Want Their Enemies Dead
Ramadan in Afghanistan: 80 dead, 350 wounded in bombing, Afghans suspect Pakistani government involvement
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousStumbleUponDiasporaEmailPrint
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *