Heaven Is Our Destination Where We Will Be ONE With The Lord Forever

Today, we are in The Season Of The Last Generation. The Birth Pains that Christ Jesus spoke about are currently under way, including natural and unnatural disasters. They will be ever increasing. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold. Social, economic and political turmoil will be ever increasing, causing people's hearts to be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life. An apostasy within the Church of God is currently under way. This will all reach a climax with Satan revealing his Antichrist and requiring that everyone worship him; That every one receive his "mark" in order to buy or sell; The new currency of the New World Order, the New Tower of Babel.

Today, it is critical that those who have a heart for God are aware of what God is doing and speaking today. God is opening up His Word like never before in preparation for The Time Of The END. I exhort you to open up your heart and your eyes to see what He is doing and your ears to hear what God is speaking at this time. My prayer is that we will be able to stand before the Son of Man at His appearing, without fault and with great joy. I encourage you to read David Wilkerson's book, America's Last Call at davidwilkersontoday.blogspot.com. Also, Google, Tommy Hicks Prophecy, 1961 for a view of the End Times.

Tom's books include: Called By Christ To Be ONE, The Time Of The END, The Season Of The Last Generation, Worship God In Spirit And In Truth, Daniel And The Time Of The END, and Overcoming The Evil One. They are available at amazon.com. They can also be read without cost by clicking on link: Toms Books.

Other publications by Tom at the same link include: You Are Unique In Christ, Demonic Activity Increasing, America: A Nation Of Cowards, LIFE: Knowing The Voice Of God, The Earth Full Of Violence: Christ's Sign, Reality: The Realm Of The Spirit, What Is Detestable To God, America At The Crossroads, Many Are Invited but Few Are Chosen, Christian Beware, The Antichrist of Scripture, The Marks Of A Christian, The Apostasy/Rebellion, Satan's Scheme, The Anointing, The Good News, The Water of LIFE, The World Against Christ, The Commands Of Christ, America's New Civil War, America Is Cursed Because Of Its Abortion Murder, America Unprotected, America's Irreconcilable Differences, Evil Begets Evil, America's War Against Christ, America Is Babylon and IN Christ: There Are No Limitations.

To receive Christ Jesus as a child by faith is the highest human achievement.

Today, the Bride Of Christ is rising up in every nation in the world! Giving Glory to Her Savior and King, Christ Jesus!
Today, the world is Raging against God, Rushing toward Oblivion! Save yourself from this Corrupt Generation!
Today, America is being ground to powder because of it's SIN against God!

Product DetailsProduct DetailsProduct DetailsProduct DetailsProduct Details

Monday, May 21, 2018

PRO-PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS SHAFT PALESTINIANS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

AG SESSIONS: THE MOST DANGEROUS MAN IN AMERICA?

Image result for photos of Jeanine Pirro

Judge Jeanine: Jeff Sessions Is ‘the Most Dangerous Man in America’


During her Saturday opening statement for “Justice” on Fox News Channel, Jeanine Pirro blasted Attorney General Jeff Sessions, calling him the “most dangerous man in America” because he has “done nothing to make anyone responsible for the blatant corruption” seen from the 2016 election.
“[Jeff Sessions] has done nothing to make anyone responsible for the blatant corruption, the unmistakable perjury, the in-your-face obstruction of our laws that we’ve seen play out every day. He has fought the release of telling documents that will put an end to this horrible period in America’s political history.
“This man has done nothing to create confidence that wrongdoers will be accountable, answerable. He has done nothing to create confidence on the part of the American people on our system of justice. 
And with all the power and might of the Department of Justice behind him, he continues to do nothing. 
He refuses to take them out in cuffs.”
Follow Trent Baker on Twitter @MagnifiTrent

'PEOPLE'S HEADS BLOWING UP' AT FOX NEWS?

fox-news-studio-600

WND

'PEOPLE'S HEADS BLOWING UP' AT FOX NEWS?

Staff reportedly on edge over Muslim prayer rugs, meditation room, sex-harassment training

While Fox News programming may not show it, staffers are reportedly on edge over changes taking place behind the scenes.
According to a report in Vanity Fair, the cable news network recently installed a “meditation room” complete with Muslim prayer rugs in Oliver North’s old office in the Washington bureau after he left to become president of the National Rifle Association.
Staffers are now required to attend mandatory sexual-harassment training, the report says.
The employee intranet includes a section on gender-transition policies and guidelines.
There’s also a new workforce-diversity council, according to the report.
“People are terrified,” 
one anonymous source is quoted as telling the magazine. 
“You’re not allowed to be transphobic. People’s heads are blowing up.”
Two years after Roger Ailes was fired for sexual-harassment charges, Suzanne Scott was promoted from programming executive to chief executive of the news organization last week.
“It’s not the Wild West anymore; there are now policies and procedures,” an anonymous network spokesperson was quoted as saying.
Another source denies the Vanity Fair report about the “meditation room” and the Muslim prayer rug, saying instead it is a “multi-purpose wellness room,” meant to serve as a quiet meditative place for all employees and nursing mothers and there were no religious icons or symbols in the room. The rugs, the source said, weren’t purchased with any particular faith in mind.
http://www.wnd.com/2018/05/peoples-heads-blowing-up-at-fox-news/
My comments: It appears that FOX may not survive the Assault of the LEFT. They may soon, no longer be a dispenser of Real News, but will Conform to the desires and Ideology of the LEFT. We pray not so.

TRUMP CALLS ROSENSTEIN, FBI'S WRAY TO THE CARPET AT WHITE HOUSE

 - The Washington Times - Monday, May 21, 2018
President Trump is meeting Monday with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and FBI Director Christopher Wray amid allegations that federal law enforcement planted an informant in the Trump campaign.
The meeting was not listed on the president’s public schedule, but White House officials said it was a routine meeting.
The meeting was set for 3 p.m.
Mr. Trump tweeted Sunday that he was going to force the FBI and Justice Department to investigate their own conduct during the 2016 presidential race.
“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the FBI/DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes - and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!” he tweeted.
He was reacting to reports that the FBI planted an informant inside the Trump campaign to look for collusion with Russia.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/21/donald-trump-calls-rod-rosenstein-christopher-wray/?
My comments: It is Obvious that the Obama Administration surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes. It is Obvious that Rosenstein appointed Muller without Legal Justification. It is Obvious that the Phony Dossier was the Illegal basis for Trump Campaign Surveillance. It is Obvious that Rosenstein and Wray are Stonewalling the Congress in refusing to given them the Documentation they have requested and have Oversight over. Both Rosenstein and Wray should be Fired, and AG Sessions along with them.

THE RISE OF THE RELIGIOUS LEFT

THE RISE OF THE RELIGIOUS LEFT
From healthcare to tax and immigration, Rev William Barber and the Poor People’s Campaign are driven by faith to focus on the disadvantaged
by  in Washington

In his prayer at the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem last week, a prayer delivered against a backdrop of violence in Gaza, the evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress said Donald Trump was a moral leader who stood “on the right side of you, O God”.
Half a world away, outside the Capitol in Washington, the Rev William Barber led a moment of silence for the 60 Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers.
As one group of faith leaders celebrates the fruits of a decades-long alliance with the Republican party, another is mounting a multi-faith challenge to the dominance of the Christian right, in an attempt to recapture the moral agenda.
“There is no religious left and religious right,” 
Barber, a pastor and political leader in North Carolina, told the Guardian. “There is only a moral center. And the scripture is very clear about where you have to be to be in the moral center – you have to be on the side of the poor, the working, the sick, the immigrant.”
Frustrated by conservative Christians’ focus on culture wars over issues such as abortion and gay marriage, 
Barber leads an ascendent grassroots movement that is trying to turn the national conversation to what they believe are the core teachings of the Bible: care for the poor, heal the sick, welcome the stranger.
The Poor People’s Campaign, 
a revival of Martin Luther King’s final effort to unite poor Americans across racial lines, last week brought together activists from several faiths, the Women’s March, the labor movement and other liberal organizations to launch 40 days of civil disobedience and protest against inequality, racism, ecological devastation and militarism. As many as 1,000 people were arrested during the first wave. More expect to be held in future.
Barber, a co-chair of the campaign, says some conservative faith leaders have “cynically” interpreted the Bible’s teachings to demonize homosexuality, abortion, scientific facts and other religions. They are guilty, he says, of 
“theological malpractice” and “modern-day heresy”.
Religious conservatives are listening to Barber’s criticism. On occasion, they have returned fire. After he excoriated a group of conservative ministers for praying for Trump at the White House and accused them of not caring for the poor, the pastors held a press conference and suggested Barber visit their churches.
“They say so much about the issues where the Bible says so little,” Barber said, repeating a refrain he often deploys to criticize the religious right. 
“But they speak so little about the issues where the Bible says so much.
“Jesus set up free healthcare clinics everywhere he went. He healed everybody and never charged a leper a co-pay.”
He reserves particular contempt for politicians who rely on racial dog whistles, voter suppression and gerrymandering.
“Slavemaster religion had a strange morality that somehow you could worship on Sunday and still have slaves on Monday,” he said. 
“But as we would say today, those preachers were not practicing religion. They were practicing racism under the cover of religion. We still see some of that today.”

‘We are surely trying to impact politics’


The demands of the Poor People’s Campaign are as ambitious as they are progressive. They have called for a repeal of the Republican tax cuts, federal and state minimum wage laws and universal single-payer healthcare. Other proposals also mirror those of politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.
“We are surely trying to impact politics,” said Liz Theoharis, a co-chair. “And we are surely trying to make sure that our elected officials take these issues seriously. But this goes far beyond any one election or election year.”
Barber and Theoharis imagine a new “southern strategy” that undoes racial divisions. For months they have barnstormed poor and working-class communities deep in Trump country, in an effort to build a multi-faith alliance.
“We visited homes where there was raw sewage in their yard,” Theoharis said. “In these communities, these issues are not seen as progressive or Democratic. They’re seen as human rights issues.”
Daniel Schultz, a writer at Religion Dispatches and a minister in the United Church of Christ, has long argued that the left is ill-equipped to rival the Christian conservatives’ alliance with Republicans. He believes progressive people of faith would be better served by a model like Indivisible, which trains local activists to resist Trump’s agenda.
“Rev Barber has a great moral message,” 
he said, “but I don’t want the next Democratic candidate for president to feel he has to kiss his ring to get elected.”
Nonetheless, the religious right helped deliver the White House to Trump
a thrice-married billionaire accused of sexually harassing more than a dozen women and of paying off a porn star over an alleged sexual encounter. They are seeing results.
Trump has moved the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, which many evangelicals believe accords with biblical prophecy. 
He has installed several judges and a supreme court justice who appear likely to advance anti-abortion causes. 
He also ended taxpayer funding for clinics that facilitate abortions, moved to restrict transgender people from serving in the military and strengthened the ability of religious leaders to preach politics from the pulpit.
That string of victories is a reminder of how hard Trump is working to keep the support of Christian conservatives ahead of this year’s midterms.
And yet Trump’s policies on immigration, healthcare and the environment are also mobilizing faith-based activists on the left. The Poor People’s Campaign wants to kickstart a voter mobilization effort. It does not plan to endorse candidates or join forces with any party. But it certainly hopes to gain political sway.
“This isn’t just about the next 40 days,” Barber said. “This is about building a movement that lasts.”
Sister Simone Campbell, a liberal Catholic activist who supports the campaign, said she feared the movement’s broad demands may be an obstacle to building long-term cohesion. But, she said, “they’re trying to create a counter-energy that can make a difference.
“I’m a person of faith so I live in hope.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/21/christian-religious-left-william-barber-poor-peoples-campaign


My comments: The so called, Christian LEFT, wants to ignore Abortion Murder, Homosexualtiy, Transgenderism and Same-Sex Marraige. No one can do this and be a Christian. They want Unlimited Immigration that will Destroy America as Founded--One Nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for ALL. Because of this, they are Ashamed of the Word of God, and God, Chrsit Jesus, will be Ashamed of them when they stand before Him in the End. 

WHY SO MANY BABY BOOMERS GETTING DIVORCED

Why are so many baby boomers getting divorced?

At first, Kathy, 53 years old, spoke to me calmly, but as the minutes ticked away, her voice started to crack. 

Her husband had a long-standing problem with alcohol. The couple, married for more than 25 years, had one son, and tried to keep the marriage together by seeing a therapist. But there came a decisive moment when she could no longer keep the relationship going. She told me: "I discovered a hotel receipt and went and counseled with our priest at that point. [The hotel receipt] was for the Oriental Fantasy suite at [this hotel] at 11 o'clock on a Tuesday morning and I'm quite certain I wasn't there at the time." At that point, she knew that her marriage was over.

Kathy experienced a mid-life or what is also known as a "gray divorce." A gray divorce is simply a divorce that occurs at or after the age of 50. Even though the divorce rate across all age groups has stabilized, the number of gray divorces in the United States has recently dramatically increased

Currently, about one out of every four divorces is gray.
What has caused this dramatic surge in gray divorces? First has simply been the aging of the baby boomer generation. In 1990, there were only 63.5 million Americans aged 50 and older, but by 2010, there were 99 million in this same age group. By 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau predicts that there will be 158.5 million individuals aged 50 and over. In addition to the growth in absolute numbers of such individuals, life expectancy has mostly continued to tick upwards. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 1950, men could be expected to live, on average, 65.6 years, while women could be expected to live 71.1 years, on average. By 2016, these ages had increased to 76.1 and 81.1, respectively. Both of these factors have worked to expose ever-greater numbers of couples to the possibility of a gray divorce.

But perhaps the most interesting part of this story is why these baby boomers are divorcing at this point in their lives, and whether men and women offer different explanations for going their own ways. In the course of this research project I interviewed 40 men and 40 women— none related to one another — about the causes of their gray divorces. What I found was fascinating.

The basis for heterosexual marriage in the U.S. has changed dramatically over the past century. Scholars have noted that, beginning in the 20th century, couples were bound together by love, but also by a set of mutually binding responsibilities toward one another. In its current form, divorce under this marital framework typically involves partners engaging in behaviors that harm themselves or their spouses. In these ways, they violate their vows of binding responsibilities, and divorce is therefore acceptable.

The social unrest of the 1960s, however, brought a different set of expectations into some marriages. The baby boomers who came of age during this period began to see their own personal self-actualization as the most important goal in their lives. Marriages soon became sites of self-empowerment and self-development for many couples. If at any point in time, one partner in a marriage was no longer fulfilled, that person could reasonably seek a divorce.

For the baby boomers I interviewed who grew up during the 1960s, one might guess that most divorces would happen because they were no longer personally fulfilled, but that was generally not the case. While some men and women identified growing apart in interests as the central reason for their split, all of the others, surprisingly, pointed to reasons related to violations of binding responsibilities that they felt were the key foundations of a healthy marriage.

For example, for men and women such as Kathy, physical infidelity proved damning for their relationships. Men and women were also similar in pointing to their partners' mental-health problems as causing their divorces.

But also interestingly, this is where the similarities ended for men and women. Men complained a lot about money-management problems. Frank, 56 years old and married for 22 years, began to notice that his wife was developing an attitude toward money which disturbed him. He observed: "I think as time went on, she had a greater interest in not working anymore, or not working and kind of living the lifestyle that some of her friends were interested [in living]." Adding on to this stress was her excessive credit-card spending. When she refused to stop charging, Frank would put limits on the cards, but then she would just move on to some other way to spend money. Frank finally decided that he "just couldn't live like that anymore", and moved toward a divorce.

Men also discussed resentment over how their children had been raised, even years after they had left the family home. In Terry's case, he and his wife, who had been married for 27 years, had completely divergent philosophies over how to discipline their two sons when they were younger. At 59 years old, Terry stated: "I wanted to instill a strong sense of responsibility and deferred gratifications, and she was almost in the polar opposite direction." Over time, these differences led to more arguments that finally resulted in a divorce.

In contrast, women tended to blame their husbands' addictions to alcohol, drugs, and pornography. In multiple cases, they tried to help their husbands seek out effective help but were ultimately unsuccessful. Susan, 63 years old and married for 39 years, became increasingly embarrassed by her husband's bouts with alcohol. She seethed: "I mean, he was a horrible drunk." Worse, he blamed her for his addiction. One evening after coming home from work, Susan saw that "he was so drunk [that] he was stumbling and falling and something snapped [in me]." For her, that was the turning point, and the marriage was over.

http://theweek.com/articles/772106/why-are-many-baby-boomers-getting-divorced

IT THERE A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN THE OFFING?

Trump and Mueller Cartoon
Is there a constitutional confrontation in the offing?
Can special counsel Robert Mueller require President Trump to testify before a grand jury? It would be unprecedented, and his effort to do so could lead to a major constitutional confrontation.
The president could, of course, resist a grand jury subpoena by asserting his right under the Fifth Amendment not to be a witness against himself. However, for political reasons, he may not wish to do that. And he may not need to.
Another off-ramp for the president, which he may choose not to take, is to remove the special counsel. Mueller is an appointee of the Department of Justice, part of the executive branch. He is therefore a subordinate of the president. 
Trump might have to jump through some hoops to remove him—such as removing the deputy attorney general who selected Mueller—but he has the power to do so. If, that is, he’s willing to withstand the public outcry and demands for impeachment that would surely follow. Legislative measures, such as those already introduced in Congress, to shackle or impede the president’s power to remove the special counsel are almost surely unconstitutional. 
So the president could avoid a grand jury subpoena by removing the official who is threatening to obtain one. But this is another step with potentially grave political implications that he may not wish to risk.
The president is not “above the law”; there are many court decisions saying so. But the Constitution is part of the law, and it makes the president the sole repository of the executive power of the United States. He is therefore not just like any other citizen.
As things now stand, Mueller has not made, or even attempted to make, a record to explain why he would be justified in invoking the power of the judiciary to compel the president to show up before a grand jury—without a lawyer—and answer whatever questions Mueller and his army of prosecutors may put to him.
Two Supreme Court decisions have been cited by some commentators as precedents authorizing compulsive judicial authority to force a president to testify before a grand jury. But neither case goes nearly that far. Indeed, both decisions are explicitly limited to the unique circumstances that gave rise to them.
In the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court held that the president does not possess an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process in all circumstances. The Court required President Nixon to produce records and tapes relating to certain conversations between the president and others pertaining to specific alleged criminal acts. The Court held that the deference ordinarily accorded to the president must in the circumstances presented yield to the prosecutor’s demonstrated specific need for particularized evidence in a criminal case. But, quoting Chief Justice John Marshall, sitting as a trial judge in the Aaron Burr treason case in 1807, the Nixon Court went on to emphasize, “In no case . . . would a court be required to proceed against the president as against an ordinary individual.” His conduct was to be treated as presumptively privileged, and forcing his compliance with a subpoena—in that case to produce records—was justified by the need for the defendant (Burr) to have the documents to defend himself.
The other precedent, Clinton v. Jones in 1997, was a civil suit charging that President Bill Clinton, when he was governor of Arkansas, had made offensive sexual overtures to Paula Jones and that she experienced retaliatory measures from her state-government employer for rejecting Clinton’s advances. The Court held that the president was not immune during his presidency from suit for civil damages for actions allegedly taken by him prior to his presidency. It did not hold that a court could compel his attendance to give testimony at any specific time and place, just that he was not entitled to put the case on hold during his presidency.
Clinton did appear before a grand jury in the Kenneth Starr special counsel investigation, but he consented to doing so. Therefore, neither of the Clinton incidents supports the proposition that a grand jury subpoena could force Trump to appear.
The collective significance of the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Nixon case and Chief Justice Marshall’s conclusions in the Burr trial is that in a criminal case, constitutional imperatives might require a president to submit to compulsory judicial process. A defendant in a criminal case has a constitutional right to confront the evidence against him and must be able to command production of that evidence, even if it is in the hands of the president.
On the other hand, a prosecutor also has a strong claim to evidence essential to the enforcement of criminal statutes. While the president’s presumptive privilege against compulsive testimony would be entitled to considerable deference, that claim could be overcome if the prosecutor makes a strong showing that he must have specific essential evidence that is not procurable from other sources and that he is not simply engaged in a fishing expedition.
As things currently stand, Mueller has made no application to a court for a subpoena to the president based on showing a need for specific evidence essential to his prosecution and not available from other sources. News sources have published a long list of subjects said to be of interest to the special counsel, but these subjects, if they are, indeed, coming from Mueller’s office, are in many cases vague, open-ended and highly generalized—all the earmarks of casting a very wide net to see what might be snared. He’s going to have to do better than that—the usual open-ended general subpoenas won’t work.
One might imagine based on news reports that Mueller has made or will make a formal request for face-to-face testimony by the president. If so, the president’s lawyers might conceivably advise Trump not to agree to anything like that unless accompanied by a specific commitment from Mueller that the interview would be short, limited, intended simply to wrap up loose ends, part of the process necessary to conclude his investigation, and not intended to be used as a basis for gathering incriminating evidence. Mueller, presumably, would not be inclined to make any such commitments. He may, at that point, proceed with a grand jury subpoena.
Acting on the advice of his lawyers, the president could refuse to comply with the subpoena. Mueller could then go to the court seeking an order compelling compliance with the subpoena accompanied by a threat that the president would be held to be in contempt of court if he continued to refuse.
At this point, the judge would probably require Mueller to show precisely what he wants from the president, why he needs it, why he cannot get the evidence elsewhere, and the importance of that evidence to a specific prosecution. Mueller would have to be highly specific and show that his need for the president’s testimony as a witness—not for the purpose of discovery—was necessary to prosecute specific criminal acts. If the court was convinced by the Mueller showing, it could order the president to comply. And that decision could be appealed by the president to the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court affirmed an order compelling the president’s testimony, President Trump and his lawyers could then decide whether to cooperate, compromise in some fashion, submit to the grand jury, refuse to testify based on his Fifth Amendment rights, or simply refuse and prepare for an impeachment battle.
The importance of all this to the president is that it is unlikely that he can be forced to give grand jury testimony simply to satisfy Mueller’s curiosity and submit to a potential perjury trap. He could, in short, put Mueller to his proof—make Mueller show that the president’s testimony was necessary to prosecute someone else. And that such evidence could not be obtained elsewhere. That is a high bar, indeed, and one that at this point Mueller has not shown he would be able to surmount.