Is Your Candidate an Armageddonist?
September 27, 2008
Belief in the The Apocalypse of John posits peace as unattainable
until the second coming of Christ.
Until there is a worldwide conflagration and a Christ based theocracy –
peace is considered impossible.
How can Armageddonists conduct sane foreign policy when they believe in such inevitabilities?
Former President Bill Clinton was in our area yesterday campaigning for Hillary. She has much support in the region due to her family ties here (Rodham). Most local Democratic politicos are supporting her because she considers this a “second home” (I thought New York was her “second home”?) and they smell hot gravy. It is not what is good for our country. It is what’s good for these provincial hacks.
Today our local media is awash with pictures of adoring fans listening to Bill’s every utterance – as if each word was backed by veracity rather than agenda. This is the same person who chose to lie rather than tell the truth, then move on with the urgent business of this country. Instead he lied like a coward and we were pulled into a muck of prurient distraction and obsession.
The hypocritical opposition chose self interest over the nation’s. They are traitors. Rather than proactively deal with emerging threats such as Al-Qaeda – our government, media, and national consciousness were focused on semen and cigars.
It was not what was good for our country – rather, it was what was good for Bill Clinton. It was not what was good for our country- rather, it was what was good for the Republican Party.
And when it came time to vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Hillary voted YES – not because it was good for our country but rather it seemed the politically expedient thing to do at a time when people who opposed the war were implied to be “traitors”. She along with most in her party rolled onto their backs rather than stand up and question the neo con propaganda machine. It was what was good for Hillary.