Home » Demonic warfare in Washington, D.C. » Unverified Comments


  • Hey Preacher Fisher, You will lose your not for profit status when you play politics. Anyway, Babtist and other Non-Traditional versions of Christianity religions are considered cults in other parts of the world.
    I love Christ, But would love to feed some Christians to the Lions.

    June 26, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
  • No shift here - still stand on my opinion that unless we see a shift in the Senate and House - makes no difference who is in the White House - will be more of the same. Not a big fan of either President Obama or Mitt Romney. I don't like Mr. Obama stand on some issues, but Mr. Romney doesn't have an answer either. I only commented because it seems that people on each side point at the other side about the money issue. I don't think either man tells the truth all the time - regardless of how much money they spend.

    As for Mute Romney - I don't know the man - I respect Mr. Obama as President and feel each of us should show the same respect for any candidate for this office. Disrespect only lessens our ability to influence others with our views and opinions.
    Edith I do know of Mr Mitt Romney and he doesn't align with where I stand on many topics either.

    June 26, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
  • Cattleman, there is not a politician--dead or alive--that didn't or doesn't ask for money. I got that email this morning. Business as usual.

    At least the Dems are fully aware of the magnitude of the Koch Brothers' money and the Citizen United funding. Did you expect that he wouldn't ask?

    So, tell me about your support of Mute Romney? Are you pleased with him as a candidate?

    June 26, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.
  • cattleman

    That may be but he is still leading in all the battleground states...The president will have enough money but he doesn't have donors who want to gut the EPA,get favorable banking laws or want to protect the tax cuts for the wealthy...He certainly doesn't have a Sheldon Adelson who says he is ready to spend $100 million of his own money.

    Oh,I think "Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive" is enough to beat Romney and then the debates will finish him off...I heard Romney's own party leaders are now calling him Mute Romney because he doesn't have an answer for the current events.

    Do I detect the middle of the road shifting to the right as the election nears?...:-)

    June 26, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
  • Just read where President Obama is emailing all his supporters for more money - he has a real concern that his opponent will out spend him and even as a sitting President recognizes that money talks. He can't stand on his record alone - he has to equal or out spend his opposition.

    June 26, 2012 at 11:56 a.m.
  • Chupakabra..."how do our candidates get their message to all 50 states."

    Only two candidates need get their message out nationwide and they don't need to get it into all 50 states. Thanks to the ridiculous Electoral College, several states don't really count. The Dakotas, Wyoming, Alaska, Maine, Delaware and Hawaii and three or four others have such small populations that they might as well not bother voting. Flapjack is right about candidates using the social networks and, gee, they can visit the states, make speeches, shake hands and kiss babies. The people and companies who contribute hundreds or thousands -- millions even -- are going to want THEIR views and concerns to be important to the candidates they bought. Wouldn't it be fun to see an honorable candidate take all the money that came his way and then get elected and go to Washington and work for the best interests of the country instead of the contributor?. He'd KNOW he would be a one term Critter, but to listen to the ones who thought they'd bought him howl, would be worth it.

    June 24, 2012 at 7:43 p.m.
  • I agree with everything you said but a suitable replacement system will have to be in place before we throw the baby out with the bath water. Or we will be left with just the blather from CNN and FOX.

    June 24, 2012 at 7:16 p.m.
  • @chupakabra You are right, state run media is the wrong option. However, We already have inexpensive tools available that are far better than television advertisements. Americans just aren't using them as actively as they should.

    -Candidates have websites and blogs with their platforms.
    -Candidate twitter accounts let us see their immediate reactions to events and how they plan to deal with the particular situation. Also, we can see back and forth between candidates or candidates and their constituents.
    -Candidate Facebook pages can host a lot of the same information and house connections to important blog posts.

    Using a collection of social platforms like these, we can be far more informed about our candidates than we are now. And, yes, these tools are way better than have all the companies in the world bid on who will become our next representative. Moreover, our representatives are more accountable when they can't make a false statement without being called out immediately across the social platforms.

    Oh, btw, there is one important thing we're forgetting. It's not just american companies that can invest in our elections. To the contrary, many foreign energy companies, chemical companies, etc., contribute to our candidates in order to exert their foreign influence on domestic policy. I'm pro-democracy, but I don't like the idea of people from other nations getting more of a vote than I do!

    June 24, 2012 at 4:03 p.m.
  • SWWWind, I am not a CEO type. My concern is how do the candidates get their message out. Do you know how much it cost to run a tv ad locally for abc new car barn. It costs tens of thousands. It is more scary to me that state run media would rule the day. That is how it is done in China. They have an economy that has explosive growth. But you can't breathe walking down the street. China squelched speech. The people only see the news their main stream media wants them to see. So how do our candidates get their message to all 50 states. Do we let ABC, NBC, and Fox define the candidates? My middle class neighborhood could could maybe buy one ad that would run for a week locally. Our system may not be perfect but it is better.

    June 24, 2012 at 3:38 p.m.
  • The preacher is worried about demons of a spiritual variety. He'd better be worried about the demons of the physical kind that have taken over Egypt. The islamic brotherhood has been declared the winner of the presidential "elections" in Egypt The new president says the capital won't be Cairo, but Jerusalem and is calling for millions of martyrs. We can only wonder how long it will take for the American president to send his congratulations.

    THIS is the kind of demons we need to worry about.

    June 24, 2012 at 10:56 a.m.
  • Chupakabra..."Campaign contributions need to be unlimited otherwise we squelch freedom of speech."

    My neighbors and I are concerned about the waste dumping habits of MegaCorp which is a wholly owned subsiderary of GotRocks Inc. This being a middle-class neighborhood with concerned citizens, we decide to pool our resources and send fifty bucks each to our representative who is running for re-election. We want to try to convince him to put a stop to MegaCorp's dumping. BUT we hadn't figured on the SCOTUS declaring GotRocks to be a person just like my neighbors. GotRocks sends the representative a check for a quarter-million and indicates there is a lot more where that came from if he ignores the dumping. To whom do you think the politician is going to pay attention? Perhaps, to cover all bases, GotRocks gives our faithful incumbens's opponant a couple-hundred grand just in case he wins. Unlimited campaign contributions has turned Congress and the president into a collection of whores who will jump into bed with the highest bidder and the citizens be damned. Somehow, I don't think THIS is what the Founders had in mind when they created a new nation dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. Citizen rights are alienated when legislators fill their campaign chests with the loot from corporations whose pockets are not only deep but bottomless. They can buy exemptions from laws, they can buy tax loopholes and they can buy special considerations from the government at the expense of citizens. And, unless you are one of those corporate CEO types, even YOU might be harmed someday because MegaCorp dumps something vile into a stream in your neighborhood.

    June 24, 2012 at 9:36 a.m.
  • The bottom line is in his own words, the pastor blames the Lord's people; "God's people have let the Devil and his workers take key positions for evil to rule."
    The pastor and others like him, wants a religion run government, much like in Iran and other such nations.

    June 23, 2012 at 11:05 p.m.
  • @chupakabra, if you think the money does not influence politics, you are wrong. I won't look up statistics and studies that you can find yourself. Google :D. Perry's loss had nothing to do with money, i'll grant you that. If you can't remember the major planks of your platform in the middle of a major debate, all the money in the world won't save you.

    You do bring up a good point that the news stations have undue influence as well. Perhaps we as viewers should start pushing for less bias in the news. There are some smaller news groups that seem to be trying to do that, but they are not mainstream.

    Anyway, corporations do employ many people. They do not represent those people. The leaders in a corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits and share value. If that means you fund a senators campaign so you can dump waste in his state at a cheaper price, so be it. If it poisons the ground water in the process and kills a few employees, who cares. The share price is up and the senator is sitting pretty in his senate seat. Think this isn't happening? Look at the Koch Brothers' plants in Wisconsin. Oh, guess who funded a huge chuck of republican Scott Walker's gubernatorial race? (the Koch Brother)

    As to celebrities: I would have no problem restricting everyone to a $10,000 donation limit, even movie stars. I assume you are not a big fan of the "homosexual agenda". Why should Ellen DeGeneres be able to donate a million dollars to run pro-gay campaign ads, while all you and I can do is discuss it on our local paper's website. These things should be decided by votes. We should be able to go to our candidates websites', figure out what they stand for, and vote accordingly. If they don't hold up their promises, we vote them out and vote in the next one.

    June 23, 2012 at 9:58 p.m.
  • I suspect it is this sort of divisive, ignorant explanation for the trouble in Washington.

    Divisive?? I call it divisive when a president abuses his power of office & repeatedly goes against the will of the people he claims to serve & represent; such as his promotion of the perverted agendas of the gay crowd etc. I don’t think he or his party has a great financial gain in mind but rather the dismantling of what little is left of a once Godly country.

    Back when he was promising hope & change, would he have been elected if he would have been honest & told the American people of his future plans?? probably not. Deceiver seems a fitting word.

    I do see a war of good vs evil on this particular issue.

    Flapjack I must agree with you on the campaign corruption subject. I dont claim to know much about it but I did look into it a little at one time. I came to a quick conclusion & had a better understanding of how & why the U.S. Govn/politics could never be any thing but a failure, & that by design.

    Thank you Pastor John for the courage to be so politically incorrect & take sides with the Lord.

    June 23, 2012 at 9:13 p.m.
  • Sorry, Flapjack, but the Supreme Court says that corporations ARE people and that they have the right to spend as much as they wish. Yes, it's insane and it it's indefensable, but the supremes said that any laws limiting corporate donations are not enforceable. This was a 5-4 decision strictly along ideological lines. The five member conservative majority voted for this travesty and the four member liberal minority voted against. With this decision, SCOTUS makes it impossible to limit corporate purchasing of politicians without a Constitutional amendment to prohibit such buying of presidents, congress critters and all the way down to city council and school boards. We've always heard that money talks, now the Supreme Court says it is speech. Makes you want to weep, doesn't it?

    June 23, 2012 at 9:12 p.m.
  • Mr. Flapjack, you are being a little hard on the pastor. I disagree with campaign finance reform. Both candidates running for president have plenty of money to run their campaigns. And corporations donate to both parties. How many people work for corporations? How many people work for AT&T/Southwestern Bell, Banks, General Motors, how many millions of people work for corporations? They happen to be their representatives too. Celebrities and multimillionares donate millions of dollars. So if you cancel donations from corporations, do you cancel donations from movie star actors, major league baseball players, professional football players?This is just a gut reaction and sounds good on tv. And it actually does not make any sense. Ban donations for political purposes that employ millions of people. Campaign contributions need to be unlimited otherwise we squelch freedom of speech. Let's say that we ban political donations from celebrities, millionares, and corporations. Who then do we rely on getting the message out to 50 states. ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Public Broadcasting, and Fox. They all have their own agenda and point of view. We have seen on a regular basis how these news sources edit a speech the way they want it to be seen. And it usually portrays the candidate they don't want to win to look like a bafoon. I think the candidates need unlimited avenues to solict funds to deliver their message as to how they want it seen. Otherwise they are silenced or defined by someone else. Our governor had a short successful stint running for president with unlimited funds but then he spoke. I think our governor is a good man. Just not a good public speaker. So I don't think money gets people elected. I think the person gets themself elected. But they must have unbridled freedom of speech in order to get their message out. Or we become Venezuela, Cuba, Soviet Union, ect. And as far as what the pastor said. Everything he said is true. You only learn this from a daily relationship with our Father in Heaven. The daily dependence on Jesus Christ. You only experience this through a relationship with Jesus Christ. Some people who are not familiar with this or are intimidated by this can think that it can be burdensome. Nothing can be further from the truth. A relationship with Jesus Christ is the most freeing experience one can acheive. If you want to look into this, join a bible based study group from any church. And begin your walk to freedom. If you want to know what peace is, this is it. What have you got to lose? What you are doing now is not working.

    June 23, 2012 at 9:09 p.m.
  • With all due respect, if something can be called evil, I suspect it is this sort of divisive, ignorant explanation for the trouble in Washington. Mr. Fisher is free to his opinion, as are all those who would like to blame Satan for every problem. I prefer to look at the issues and use my "god-given" faculties to think.

    In all of history, so few governments have been ruled by "Christian" or "God-Fearing" people. And, every one of them worked until they didn't. In every instance, as is true of our current problems, it was far more complicated than "Spiritual warfare".

    The most glaring problem in today's politics is that politicians are not looking out for us. They are, for the most part, bought and sold. I don't mean to say that they are all conspiring against us. I just mean to say that they are more concerned with Sheldon Adelson's interest, for example, when he gives 100 million dollars to get a candidate elected, than they are with the everyday man.

    Why is money such a big deal you ask? Because, the candidate who wins an election over 90% of the time is the one with the most money. (that is a real statistic. It varies between 86-97 percent from year to year). As a result, your vote doesn't really count. Its the one who can afford multi-million dollar ads who counts. That is why every politicion talks about "change" in Washington without every actually doing anything.

    So, please feel free to "take the name and blood of Jesus to combat the demons". Meanwhile, please help us pass a law and/or constitutional amendment to limit campaign donations from individuals and especially corporations. Corporations are not people and they do not represent your interests (unless you are a CEO). Your vote matters as much as Bill Gates and Sheldon Adleson. Why? Because you are an American!

    June 23, 2012 at 7:54 p.m.