# Obama Smells Himself For Sulfur, Confirms He's Not A Demon



## Laela (Oct 14, 2016)

Story http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/obama-sulfur-smell-alex-jones/

*Excerpt:*
Obama was responding to the claim by Alex Jones, founder of the conspiracy website "InfoWars" and host of "The Alex Jones Show" on radio, who warned viewers on his program that both the President and the Democratic presidential nominee carried the scent of demons.

_"Hillary, reportedly, I mean, I was told by people around her that they think she's demon-possessed, okay? I'm just going to go ahead and say it, okay," he began.

"Imagine how bad she smells, man," Jones continued. "I'm told her and Obama just stink, stink, stink, stink. You can't wash that evil off, man. I'm told there's a rotten smell around Hillary. I'm not kidding, people say -- folks, I've been told this by high up folks. They say listen, Obama and Hillary both smell like sulfur. I never said this, because the media will go crazy with it, but I've talked to people that are in protective details -- they're scared of her. And they say listen, she's a frickin demon and she stinks and so does Obama. I go, like what? Sulfur. They smell like Hell."_


_________________________
*For the record:

Demonic possession* is the belief that individuals can be possessed by malevolent preternatural beings, commonly referred to as demons or devils. Obsessions and possessions of the devil are placed in the rank of apparitions of the evil spirit among men. It is obsession when the demon acts externally against the person whom it besets, and possession when he acts internally, agitates them, excites their ill humor, makes them utter blasphemy, speak tongues they have never learned, discovers to them unknown secrets, and inspires them with the knowledge of the obscurest things in philosophy or theology.[A 1] Descriptions of demonic possessions often include erased memories or personalities, convulsions (i.e. epileptic seizures or “fits”) and fainting as if one were dying.[1] Other descriptions include access to hidden knowledge (gnosis) and foreign languages (xenoglossy), drastic changes in vocal intonation and facial structure, the sudden appearance of injuries (scratches, bite marks) or lesions, and superhuman strength. Unlike in channeling, the subject has no control over the possessing entity and so it will persist until forced to leave the victim, usually through a form of exorcism.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 14, 2016)

He may not BE a demon but he surely folows his doctrine.   Both Obama and Hillary support full term pregnancy abortions. This is so sad, let alone beyond cruel...it's just plain evil.    It doesn't take the smell of sulfur to expose whom he follows.   

I have NO respect for him  nor his works.  

Jus' sayin'


----------



## bellatiamarie (Oct 15, 2016)

If Obama smells like sulfur... what does Trump smell like? Hmm..


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Oct 16, 2016)

I can't support many of Obama's policies but I think he has primarily been demonized due to his race. Many people believe he's the antichrist.


----------



## kanozas (Oct 16, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> I can't support many of Obama's policies but I think he has primarily been demonized due to his race. Many people believe he's the antichrist.




Gurl lol...who do they think Hilary or Trump are by those standards haha?!  SMH.  It's disgusting how they malign this intelligent man.  His name means "blessed." "Barack" is "baruch"..."blessed."And Mike Pence is a liar...he promoted a genocidal maniac of Trump as a "christian." 


I dunno if anyone saw Alex's recent teary meltdown over Obama and these elections but this man is highly unstable...emotionally unstable.  People make all kinds of moral errors but that doesn't mean they are demons.  Even, there is pushback in our own church over the moral right of a woman to abort if her life is endangered.  Until a man or another woman has had a child and had their lives endangered, esp. when they had a spouse and other children in their care, and know what it's like to face such a choice, they need to shut up, imo.  I'm not willingly going to endanger myself nor the lives of those I'm in charge of when G-d gave us medical miracles and procedures to live longer.  I don't believe in any abortion except for that which our Church approves - in the event the life of the mother is endangered.  My life matters, too.  Saint Gianna Beretta ...she suffered.  For catholics, it's important to run this by your pastor and medical professionals because the psychological implications can also damage your health.

Ahem, so, Alex Jones....what a nutcase.  He's mentally unstable.  If anyone "religious" were to look at his meltdowns, they might conclude he's actually possessed or oppressed by evil.  Trying to find his most recent one:



Now, what do they think White people are????   With all the evil history of this planet and unprecedented destruction?  Not just govt. policies and oppression but corporations ruining the heath of millions for profit?  Ruining societies and ethnic groups with cunning and satanic skill?  Even within the Church...turning a freaking blind eye to the miseries people have been enslaved in for centuries?  SMH.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Oct 16, 2016)

^ Saint Gianna died from an infection...not the tumor since the tumor was benign and successfully removed while she was pregnant.   She was treated for the tumor. She died from a surgical complication ( infection) not from the pregnancy per se.

Also I don't think the church technically approves of "abortion."  They approve treatment for an illness (i.e. cancer or ectopic etc) when the mom's life is in danger. Having a surgery to remove a cancer or a tumor would not really be abortion. The loss of the pregnancy is a side effect of the treatment, but that is not the same as a willful termination.


----------



## beingofserenity (Oct 16, 2016)

I'm 99% certain this guy is deep in the closet. People like that are probably entertaining multiple demonic influences.

Abortion is something that is a deeply personal decision. I am greatful that I have never been in a circumstance where I had to make that decision


----------



## kanozas (Oct 16, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> ^ Saint Gianna died from an infection...not the tumor since the tumor was benign and successfully removed while she was pregnant.   She was treated for the tumor. She died from a surgical complication ( infection) not from the pregnancy per se.
> 
> *Also I don't think the church technically approves of "abortion."  They approve treatment for an illness (i.e. cancer or ectopic etc) when the mom's life is in danger. Having a surgery to remove a cancer or a tumor would not really be abortion. The loss of the pregnancy is a side effect of the treatment, but that is not the same as a willful termination*.





To the bolded, yes,  understood.  It's still an abortion to save the life of the mother when she is endangered.  I'm looking at the technical medical term.  The church allows the procedure in this case and this case only.  I think it's important for any woman in that situation to consult her pastor as well as medical personnel and not be swayed to endanger her life by reading junk on catholic fora.  You can be exposed to all kinds of error.  I've read something that basically condemned women in that type of situation to either "murder" or "sainthood" (meaning, accepting death).  What if both the mother and baby die and the husband is left raising 5 kids alone?  SMH.  It's like everyone expects the most out of women but I highly doubt something comparative, if possible,  would be expected of men.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Oct 17, 2016)

kanozas said:


> To the bolded, yes,  understood.  *It's still an abortion to save the life of the mother when she is endangered.  I'm looking at the technical medical term.* *The church allows the procedure in this case and this case only*.  I think it's important for any woman in that situation to consult her pastor as well as medical personnel and not be swayed to endanger her life by reading junk on catholic fora.  You can be exposed to all kinds of error.  I've read something that basically condemned women in that type of situation to either "murder" or "sainthood" (meaning, accepting death).  What if both the mother and baby die and the husband is left raising 5 kids alone?  SMH.  It's like everyone expects the most out of women but I highly doubt something comparative, if possible,  would be expected of men.



That is not really what the Church teaches...here it is from the source not the catholic forums.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

"*2271* Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. *Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: *
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76"

Maybe it just sounds like semantics but Mother Church would never endorse abortion. _Treatment_ to save a mothers life that could also end a pregnancy is allowed but that is not an abortion. I believe that is the difference. Ultimately I agree that a woman in this situation must consult her priest.


----------



## Laela (Oct 17, 2016)

IKR! 



bellatiamarie said:


> If Obama smells like sulfur... what does Trump smell like? Hmm..


----------



## Laela (Oct 17, 2016)

I understand and respect your position on Obama, but I doubt he's possessed. That's a strong claim against anyone... and reason why I added the demon posessession breakdown. Doing demonic things is different.. Like Creflo likes to say" they'se devilish" 





Shimmie said:


> He may not BE a demon but he surely folows his doctrine.   Both Obama and Hillary support full term pregnancy abortions. This is so sad, let alone beyond cruel...it's just plain evil.    It doesn't take the smell of sulfur to expose whom he follows.
> 
> I have NO respect for him  nor his works.
> 
> Jus' sayin'


----------



## Ivonnovi (Oct 18, 2016)

I am sorry but I get HIGHLY ANNOYED with the antics of "scary politics*".  It's this mindset that has us involved in armed conflict even as I type.    *not just Christian's

Please don't stone me, BUT  FOR A LONG TIME, I have felt that Abortions will/should continue as long there is a _Hardness of Men's [and Womens] Hearts_.      Much like the circumstances that led to Divorces being permitted back in the early [biblical] days  per Matthew 9:8.

We routinely dehumanize categories of humans in order to mis-treat them; I believe whe,n we change the behaviors that lead to the "unwanted" pregnancies then we can change the #of abortions and perhaps the laws will no longer be a needed or relevant issue.   But until then, ..........let these folks manage _life_ the best way they can, and pray/fight to change the pre-abortion behaviors.

Back in the day they felt that *Ronald* Wilson *Reagan*, and the fact that he has 6 letters in each name =666 the mark of the Devil?      Hmm, perhaps we Christian should focus on living a life like Christ;  spend more time see(king) Love, Harmony, Peach and Understanding; and way less time stop see(king) the Devil and Demons.​


----------



## kanozas (Oct 19, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> That is not really what the Church teaches...here it is from the source not the catholic forums.
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
> 
> "*2271* Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. *Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: *
> ...




a·bor·tion
əˈbôrSH(ə)n/
_noun_
noun: *abortion*; plural noun: *abortions
1*.
the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.


Semantic meaning, yes.  Just the medical term for the procedure, amoral.  It's actually an "obstetrical abortion" or "termination."  What you are mainly pointing to is the Church not ever allowing a "criminal abortion" of certain type of intent vs. the "obstetrical abortion" in which the fetus is not intended to die by will because of the mother's life...also, there being a "spontaneous abortion" as miscarriage.   They both end up terminating the pregnancy and I'm just stressing the medical term for the end-result...terminated pregnancy, however it arrives.  I do not know how an "obstetrical abortion" would be presented and how long it would take before the Tribunal.  I do know they are rather rare.  

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
_...if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely: _

_That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them; _
_That the immediate effect be good in itself; _
_That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed; _
_That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect._
_ All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother's life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother's life is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life. Of course provision must be made for the child's spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian._


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Oct 19, 2016)

kanozas said:


> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
> _...if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely: _
> 
> _That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them; _
> ...



Since I am not familiar with New Advent I will stick with the catechism on this very sensitive subject.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 20, 2016)

Laela said:


> I understand and respect your position on Obama, but I doubt he's possessed. That's a strong claim against anyone... and reason why I added the demon posessession breakdown. Doing demonic things is different.. Like Creflo likes to say" they'se devilish"


I'm calling Obama exactly what he is...demonic.   He knows better but chooses otherwise that which is not of God.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 21, 2016)

Ivonnovi said:


> I am sorry but I get HIGHLY ANNOYED with the antics of "scary politics*".  It's this mindset that has us involved in armed conflict even as I type.    *not just Christian's
> 
> Please don't stone me, BUT  FOR A LONG TIME, I have felt that Abortions will/should continue as long there is a _Hardness of Men's [and Womens] Hearts_.      Much like the circumstances that led to Divorces being permitted back in the early [biblical] days  per Matthew 9:8.
> 
> ...


Im not stoning you.  I simply have to post this.

Abortions have come from the limit of the 1st trimester, to 5 months and NOW full term!   A full term life, a living breathing innocent baby, who has done harm to No One, is murdered in cold blood.

An act of deliberate murder that is not only approved of but being defended by and supported by and legislated by Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Do you also support this?  Late term abortions?   All of this talk about scarey politics has originated from the platforms and policies and acts of Obama and Hillary; they are the ones who put it out there.

http://ijr.com/2016/10/718189-even-...-hillary-gave-her-late-term-abortion-answers/

Hillary is out to finish what Obama started.   There's no cap / no limits on who elects a full term abortion.  She has made this among gay marriage the top of her platform during each speech and debate.   She is out to enforce gay rights and minimizing Christian rights.

Scarey politics, indeed.  However,  the curators are not those who oppose and call them out.  Obama and Hillary's fruit speak loudly of evil and scary politics.

The blood of these aborted babies will not be upon my hands.  The Bible is quite clear about this...the taking of innocent blood and those who play the accomplice to it will bring God"s judgment.


----------



## Ivonnovi (Oct 21, 2016)

Thank you for the input and the information; and yes I do stand by my original post.  I'm not comfortable with the procedures, but you won't find me protesting; though when giving private counsel I'd let my feelings be known. 

There are many ways in-which innocent blood is shed on a daily basis.  

I've witnessed "Collateral damage" as it pertains to WAR (2 wars).      _Personally I did not approve of the war nor the carnage._

Innocent ill people die needlessly because they can't afford medical care, or are denied insurance coverage.     _Just yesterday I spoke with a young man that's recently lost his dad to cancer due to this._

Other countries have what they consider Honor Killings; while in other other countries innocents starve to death daily.   _3rd world problems? maybe but still_
None of these losses makes sense to me; and to be honest I find it sickening. I hope in time abortions will end too..just like the Salem Witch Trials and the Christian Crusades

Speaking of Abortions:  To my knowledge it none of the President's since 1970 have performed abortions; neither have the folks on the Supreme Court that approved, defend, and have allowed for expansion of the laws.  It is the [Medical] Men & Women of this country that carry out these procedures and lobby $$ for expansion of the practices; UNTIL THEIR HEART$ are changed along with the folks whose _behaviors_ drive them to _necessitate_ these procedures not much will change.     
Even the Beloved Republican Reagan as Governor of California, felt compelled to sign into law the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", in an effort to reduce the number of "back room abortions" performed in California.​ 
I too was outraged at the expansion of what a legal abortion is; but then I've never been faced with having to make that choice; .....I've had to make other choices and the only positive was that the law was on my side.   

Regarding my Scary Politics statement; I meant it as a broad stroke statement to include fear mongering tactics incite irrational fear of things such as :  school desegregation; selling liquor on Sunday's,  letting gay's in the military; ] a President who has 3 names -each with 6 letters as being a DEMON; and those who prefer to DEMONIZE or DEHUMANIZE anyone who's political view they fear.; oh and do let me add my favorite:  Those who fear that the written phrase Merry X-mas is taking the Christ out of Christmas or blasphemy .   FEAR and SEX sells

AND let's not forget that there are Christian Gay's   so their getting married might be and affront to your sensibilities but it does not infringe upon your rights as a Christ-Like being. 

I'll stop there, but do understand that I realize my views as expressed here are not popular or mainstream; I'll not engage on this subject any more.  Rest well


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 21, 2016)

Ivonnovi said:


> Thank you for the input and the information; and yes I do stand by my original post.  I'm not comfortable with the procedures, but you won't find me protesting; though when giving private counsel I'd let my feelings be known.
> 
> There are many ways in-which innocent blood is shed on a daily basis.
> 
> ...



Okay, so you're confirming that you agree with full term babies being aborted? 

Again, I'm not stoning you, I just wanted clarity on where your faith and commitment to God's Word lies.

Your faith is compromised...

No man (or woman) can serve two masters.  He / She will love one and hate the other. 

One cannot continue to live a gay lifestyle as a Christian.   They have to repent of that lifestyle; give it up for it is not of God.

God has made it clear that marriage is between a man and woman, not two people of the same sex.  Gay marriage is not validated by God.

God does not support abortion.  The taking of innocent blood is not validated by God. 

Jesus said: "Let the little children come unto me.  If anyone harms s child, it is better for a millstone to be tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea. 

You said that no president nor anyone on the Supreme Court ever "performed" an abortion.  They did so by putting it into law which has since opened up flood gate after flood gates of innocent blood of innocent babies being shed.   So, indeed they have performed these heinous crimes against babies. 

Now, Hillary Clinton has made it her personal agenda, her personal platform to take the life, spill the blood of Full Term Living Babies...to lift the ban of abortion limitations, opening the doors for "whosoever will" to freely elect to kill a new born full term baby.

This is Murder in the First Degree...

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/21...over-hillary-clintons-ghastly-abortion-views/


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Oct 22, 2016)

^ Hilary has also said plainly that she is coming for the Church.  I cannot support her and don't understand how professed Christians can support her.


----------



## kanozas (Oct 22, 2016)

For these reasons, I support separation of Church and State.  Just look at the origin of this country in the first place.  It had NOTHING to do with Jesus.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 22, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> ^ Hilary has also said plainly that she is coming for the Church.  I cannot support her and don't understand how professed Christians can support her.


Belle... I totally agree.

This is beyond grief.  For anyone  to take the life of a new born baby, it's evil.  It is not God.   Hillary Clinton is making these babies as a human blood sacrifice to become elected.   God's  judgment is upon her and it will not be merciful, for she has chosen her path.

When she speaks of marriage equility, she's after the Church to try and force the Church to comply with gay marriage.  

This woman is the new isis, she is a terrorist against infants with full term baby abortions and a witch against the Holiness of God.    Her evil shall not prevail.


----------



## Laela (Oct 22, 2016)

The last debate, she pretty much said her Supreme Court will be geared toward accommodating the LGBT community... I was too through...




Belle Du Jour said:


> ^ Hilary has also said plainly that she is coming for the Church.  I cannot support her and don't understand how professed Christians can support her.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 23, 2016)

Laela said:


> Thecommunity debate, she pretty much said her Supreme Court will be geared toward accommodating the LGBT community... I was too through...


What more do gays need?   What about the Black community being accommodated?

Hillary's mindset is not sound.   She has not provided sound logical evidence of being capable as president of this country. 

Her entire platform is based on death and destruction of life (aborting new borns), destroying family structure and marriage and not one plan of action to defend and protect and enrich this country nor to defend the rights of those of faith in God.

She is the new isis, a terrorist in this land.


----------



## kanozas (Oct 23, 2016)

Other than abortion and other items on her public platform, there's another insidious project underway.  Look at the entire world.  It deals with the international elite.  They keep us fighting over the "little" stuff while they are running to the finish line to enslave us all.  SMH.Talk about evil!


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 23, 2016)

kanozas said:


> Other than abortion and other items on her public platform, there's another insidious project underway.  Look at the entire world.  It deals with the international elite.  They keep us fighting over the "little" stuff while they are running to the finish line to enslave us all.  SMH.Talk about evil!


This isn't little stuff, taking the life of a new born baby.   This exceeds the international elite.

This country is supposed to be civilized.   Yet there is a woman, Killary Clinton, running for office who cares more about ensuring a sin filled gay agenda, than the life of a new born baby.   She is promoting the murders of infants, at full term to be killed and without mercy.

As adults, we can still fend for ourselves, fight for our rights...but a precious baby, full of life...cannot.

This is beyond the ills of this world.   It's gone way too far.   It's beyond insidious.  Beyond evil.


----------



## HappilyLiberal (Oct 25, 2016)

@Shimmie 

Out of fairness...  most abortions occur with in the first trimester.  When a late-term abortion occurs, it was in all likelihood preceded with the statement "I have some very bad news for you."  Most women who go through the trouble of carrying a child through the eighth month do so because that child is very much wanted.  I am not willing to have myself or the government or anyone else intervene in what is likely the most painful decision a mother has to make!


----------



## beingofserenity (Oct 25, 2016)

*No, Late-Term Abortions Don't 'Rip' Babies Out Of Wombs -- And They Exist For A Reason*

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahae...ut-of-wombs-but-they-are-needed/#3f08e7b41bc4

If that sounds a bit flippant, that’s because, as Jen Gunter, an OBGYN who trained in late-term abortions, pointed out on Twitter, “There is no such thing as a ninth month abortion.” Those who seek late-term abortions are seeking them before a pregnancy reaches full term but often and unfortunately after they have discovered in the second or third trimester some problem with the fetus or danger to the mother.

But the inaccuracies started before Trump even responded: Wallace’s question was problematic right out of the gate because of the term he used. “Partial birth” is a political, not medical, term, and it does not refer to all late-term abortions. It refers to a very specific and rare procedure called dilation and evacuation, in which a fetus is partially pulled through the birth canal and then aborted, nearly always when the fetus cannot live outside the womb and typically when the mother’s health is in danger, the fetus has a serious abnormality, or both. Such a procedure is not conducted lightly: the fetus has a fatal defect and will not survive, or the mother is at risk of death herself.

Again, even among the 1.3% of abortions occurring after 20 weeks, most are also occurring well before the 38th to 40th weeks, when a baby may be considered full term. The most common procedure for these is a dilation and evacuation, which carries enough risks to the mother that they’re unlikely to be undergoing it unless it’s truly necessary.


----------



## beingofserenity (Oct 25, 2016)

Abortions are complicated.  You can try and make it a simple matter of right or wrong, but it rarely is.

Abortion didn't become illegal until the late 1800s.  I think abortions became illegal in the first place as a way to control the wombs of white women to ensure that they remained in a traditional child-bearing role and to ensure that white women kept producing white children.  People kept having abortions anyway.  It then became legal as a way to make sure that women who chose to undergo an abortion could do so in a safe and sanitary way.  So that they didn't lose their lives in the process.  

No one is making anyone get an abortion.  The state has just made is so that women are no longer DYING from the procedure.  It is always a decision made between the mother and her doctor.  It is a deeply personal decision.  

Once again, no one is making anyone get an abortion.  If abortion ever actually becomes illegal again, people are still going to have abortions.  You are never going to be able to stop women from seeking out abortions. So, I don't understand why anyone works them self up about it.  Put all of that attention on the kids who are already here.  Because we can actually do something about that.  

Legal or not, you will never stop women from undergoing abortions, you will never stop women from undergoing abortions, you will never stop women from undergoing abortions.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 25, 2016)

Then why is Hillary lifting the ban for ALL abortion procedures?

This talk about medical "reasons" is a farce; it is a cover up to justify the procedure.   Hillary is LYING and I'm not buying her murderous platform.

She is literally out to make it possible for ANYONE to have a full term abortion and that is murder, cold-blooded murder of an innocent baby full of life and health.  

For years, there have been legal procedures and non-disputed for tragic situations regarding where the life of a mother and child were in jeopardy.    This is a proven fact.     Therefore, there is absolutely no validation for Hillary's heartless plan.  None!

 And there is s partial birth abortion procedure where the doctor partially delivers the baby, then uses a pronged instrument to stab into the base of the baby's neck, which deflates the baby's brain, killing the baby.

This was made legal for abortions after the 1st trimester up to 5 months of the baby's development.

And mind you, this was not medically necessary!   These are women who chose to wait.   

Hillary Clinton is a murderer,  by making full term abortions available for anyone who chooses.

Who is wiping the floors of endless pools of blood of these babies?   Hillary's not.    I pray, Dear God I pray that God's judgment falls upon her. . .  Least she admits the truth and repents of this heinous crime against innocent life...spilling innocent blood.   

What folks do not realize is just how serious this is.   Judgment has no other option than to come for Hillary Clinton, for the seed has been sown and it shall not return void of God's retribution.   That's God's law which cannot be repealed.   

I will not support nor defend nor validate her heartless cold-blooded murderous mind against innocent babies.   

Her judgment is coming and it will not have mercy, just as she has not shown mercy.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 25, 2016)

beingofserenity said:


> Abortions are complicated.  You can try and make it a simple matter of right or wrong, but it rarely is.
> 
> Abortion didn't become illegal until the late 1800s.  I think abortions became illegal in the first place as a way to control the wombs of white women to ensure that they remained in a traditional child-bearing role and to ensure that white women kept producing white children.  People kept having abortions anyway.  It then became legal as a way to make sure that women who chose to undergo an abortion could do so in a safe and sanitary way.  So that they didn't lose their lives in the process.
> 
> ...


So what you are saying is that killing an infant in cold blood is something not to care about?   

This is a baby... a full term healthy baby being killed and for no lawful reason whatsoever, here on earth.   

Don't run ... There is no way that you can hide from the truth.   An innocent life taken for no lawful reason.


----------



## kanozas (Oct 25, 2016)

I'm no Hilary supporter.  Please read the factual information.  There are some situations (considerably rare) which endanger both the mother and child to where there will be massive hemorrhaging or fast-metastasizing cancer, appendicitis etc.  The goal in that case is to save the mother as both will die.  A child in vitro early on is not  viable yet but  if the dangerous situation (mentioned in the thread) is not corrected, both the mother and child will die.  This is not by hearsay nor make believe but by physicians who are aware of the situation AND are pro-life.   In those scenarios, the child will be baptized immediately but they do not go in with suction  nor scalpel, parting up the child.l.  The diseased portion is removed and* IF* the child is in the diseased portion and there is no way to repair it, then the child will die. Four moral conditions must be met which are delineated in that article.  Direct abortion is wrong, let me make that clear.  I am talking about indirect medical intervention of the pregnancy that is inevitable in which both child and mother will die unless something is done and the type of surgery must follow a certain type.

There have been attempts in the past to replant an embryo into the womb (fallopian) and some births have resulted but those children typically die early on in life.  It needs more research and I hope one day, they can successfully re-implant them to the uterus  with a good prognosis (but if the uterus has to go, there is no way).    I am not promoting murder nor direct abortion (again, reiterating the medical terminology only).  People go through surgery all day long and quite a few surgeries don't have the best prognosis.  One doesn't  know if the patient's life will be saved.  People in that case consult the their pastor and medical doctors.  This is not an ordinary case.


----------



## kanozas (Oct 25, 2016)

beingofserenity said:


> Abortions are complicated.  You can try and make it a simple matter of right or wrong, but it rarely is.
> 
> Abortion didn't become illegal until the late 1800s.  I think abortions became illegal in the first place as a way to control the wombs of white women to ensure that they remained in a traditional child-bearing role and to ensure that white women kept producing white children.  People kept having abortions anyway.  It then became legal as a way to make sure that women who chose to undergo an abortion could do so in a safe and sanitary way.  So that they didn't lose their lives in the process.
> 
> ...




I can see your points and agree to the extent that nobody cared about brown babies, African nor Indian in this country but solely White babies.  Abortion is nothing new and the bible does not say a lot about life in the womb but it does affirm that human life is valuable.  It does mention that G-d knew us in the womb.  That's actually a lot.

Infanticide and abortion have been done throughout all cultures from the beginning or the fall?  I think that the bible is revealed to us in various ways throughout the generations of men and t hat we come to a deeper knowledge of what is right and wrong.  I agree that they wanted to make abortion less deadly with the goal of preserving White lives but the fetus is human.  No, we can't stop all abortions, just like we cannot fully stop racism, murder, genocide.  All of it happens but we can fight to make life valuable enough to hedge protection around it and to curb it by laws and. punishments.  Biblical values and interpretation of those values are what Christians hold onto as the Church first (G-d), civil later.  It doesn't mean that we can never deeply examine any issue on earth.


----------



## beingofserenity (Oct 25, 2016)

Shimmie said:


> So what you are saying is that killing an infant in cold blood is something not to care about?
> 
> This is a baby... a full term healthy baby being killed and for no lawful reason whatsoever, here on earth.
> 
> Don't run ... There is no way that you can hide from the truth.   An innocent life taken for no lawful reason.



I just hope I never have to make that decision.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 25, 2016)

kanozas said:


> I'm no Hilary supporter.  Please read the factual information.  There are some situations (considerably rare) which endanger both the mother and child to where there will be massive hemorrhaging or fast-metastasizing cancer, appendicitis etc.  The goal in that case is to save the mother as both will die.  A child in vitro early on is not  viable yet but  if the dangerous situation (mentioned in the thread) is not corrected, both the mother and child will die.  This is not by hearsay nor make believe but by physicians who are aware of the situation AND are pro-life.   In those scenarios, the child will be baptized immediately but they do not go in with suction  nor scalpel, parting up the child.l.  The diseased portion is removed and* IF* the child is in the diseased portion and there is no way to repair it, then the child will die. Four moral conditions must be met which are delineated in that article.  Direct abortion is wrong, let me make that clear.  I am talking about indirect medical intervention of the pregnancy that is inevitable in which both child and mother will die unless something is done and the type of surgery must follow a certain type.
> 
> There have been attempts in the past to replant an embryo into the womb (fallopian) and some births have resulted but those children typically die early on in life.  It needs more research and I hope one day, they can successfully re-implant them to the uterus  with a good prognosis (but if the uterus has to go, there is no way).    I am not promoting murder nor direct abortion (again, reiterating the medical terminology only).  People go through surgery all day long and quite a few surgeries don't have the best prognosis.  One doesn't  know if the patient's life will be saved.  People in that case consult the their pastor and medical doctors.  This is not an ordinary case.


Please read carefully the facts of what I am sharing here.

The fact is that Hillary's agenda and full intent is to lift all abortion bans do that anyone, without medical reasons can legally abort a full term baby.   

I never said anything against anyone, be it mother or child, in a life and death situation.

Hillary has been very open about this, having the restrictions lifted for everyone, yet she is using medical reasons as a cover-up.

Hillary Clinton is a liar; a heartless individual to take it this far.


----------



## Shimmie (Oct 25, 2016)

beingofserenity said:


> I just hope I never have to make that decision.


FYI:   

God cares very much about a baby in the womb.

Exodus 21:22

"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.

----------

How much more does God care about the taking of a baby's life?  Not because it is a matter of life or death for the mother or child, but those who choose wrongfully.   This is what Clinton is lifting the ban for, which is a wrongful death for an infant.


----------



## kanozas (Oct 25, 2016)

I was talking  about a different issue which only dealt with the endangered mother and imminent death for both mother and child - not Franken Clintonstein.    I made a thread on what moral theology is saying about one specific issue within the Catholic Church which is is not a direct abortion in that sense at all.    For example, if a mother were hemorrhaging from a burst fallopian, it would be licit to remove the diseased, compromised part of the fallopian that is killing the mother.  The child, if contained in that portion of the fallopian, would most likely not be viable at that stage and would die as a consequence of saving the life of the mother.  4 moral conditions have to be met and NO DIRECT ABORTION is licit.  Unfortunately, if the child comes with the diseased portion and is not viable, the consequence is death but saving of the mother.  Or, if the mother had, say, appendicitis and needed emergency surgery, depending upon how far along the baby is and the chance he can survive, no harm must come to either the baby or mother.  Hopefully, the child can be saved and incubated.  If not, it is a duty to save the life of the mother.  Appendectomies are dangerous to pregnant women.  Whaddaya gonna do, let her die because she's 3 months pregnant but she has sepsis?  They would not remove the baby but it's likely he will die in the womb as a result of the surgery. The surgeon has to consider those 4 moral conditions to be met so that no mortal sin is committed.

Franken has nothing at all to do with moral theology and this specific issue in the least.    I've said various times in several places that we don't have good candidates, as most Americans are thinking.  People are going to choose who they consider the lesser of two evils...evils, nonetheless.  I'm not voting for Trumpez because he lied about caring about fetuses.  He's got other insidious plans in tow and I'm not going to usher in my own genocide by a vote for him.


----------



## kanozas (Oct 26, 2016)

What I am talking about has nothing to do with this and I hope the CF comprehends that.  I feel sorry for their suffering, mother and child.  I believe that is a case of direct abortion by ending the child's life where the mother was not in imminent danger but it's hard to tell according to the concealed info.  Some mention was made by the doctor about her being in danger.  I don't know if she were dying at that particular point after the sonogram or right before the procedure.  It's just a diff. case than the article I submitted here.  Some infants will die as fetuses and others at birth or shortly thereafter.  It's all tragic.  Still doesn't justify directly attacking the baby.  Re-iterating, what I submitted was entirely different.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/26/abortion-late-term-donald-trump-column/92691850/

I


----------



## momi (Nov 4, 2016)

Belle Du Jour said:


> ^ Hilary has also said plainly that she is coming for the Church.  I cannot support her and don't understand how professed Christians can support her.



Yes she has. She has said we need to alter our views. 

Obama has already shown his hand with that awful bathroom bill and lighting the WH up in rainbow colors. Smh

The only thing he has done for black America is cause many Christians to abandon their Christian values.


----------



## Belle Du Jour (Nov 4, 2016)

momi said:


> Yes she has. She has said we need to alter our views.
> 
> Obama has already shown his hand with that awful bathroom bill and lighting the WH up in rainbow colors. Smh
> 
> The only thing he has done for black America is cause many Christians to abandon their Christian values.



If she said this about Jews or Muslims she would be done. Christians are weak. We need to toughen up and start protecting our own interests.


----------



## HappilyLiberal (Nov 6, 2016)

momi said:


> Yes she has. She has said we need to alter our views.
> 
> Obama has already shown his hand with that awful bathroom bill and lighting the WH up in rainbow colors. Smh
> 
> The only thing he has done for black America is cause many Christians to abandon their Christian values.




She hasn't caused anyone to abandon their Christian values.  If they abandoned their Christian values they did so because they wanted to!


----------



## Laela (Nov 6, 2016)

I don't agree that a person who is truly anchored in Jesus Christ will allow anyone to make them "abandon" their  values or faith.. Certainly not Trump...he ain't got that power..He's only speaking for the silent majority, most of whom think like him anyway

Romans 8:38

As much progress as we've seen, we must remember there still exists white Christians with the pathology that they are a superior race and can quote that slave/master scripture to prove it to be biblical... and they really believe this to be true. Slavery has thought us that. I feel sorry for people like that. Y'all, I'll go look for that research by a scientist who explains this pathology. Sad stuff..


----------



## Laela (Nov 6, 2016)

That's because there are too many divisions in Christendom... 




Belle Du Jour said:


> Christians are weak. We need to toughen up and start protecting our own interests.


----------



## ommns (Nov 6, 2016)

Laela said:


> I don't agree that a person who is truly anchored in Jesus Christ will allow anyone to make them "abandon" their  values or faith.. Certainly not Trump...he ain't got that power..He's only speaking for the silent majority, most of whom think like him anyway
> 
> Romans 8:38
> 
> As much progress as we've seen, we must remember *there still exists white Christians with the pathology that they are a superior race* and can quote that slave/master scripture to prove it to be biblical... and they really believe this to be true. Slavery has thought us that. I feel sorry for people like that. Y'all, I'll go look for that research by a scientist who explains this pathology. Sad stuff..




Re the bolded -   I cannot understand this at all. Do they really think there will be a white section in heaven? I was listening to a radio program, a pastor told a story of a black couple who attended a white church for years.  When they wanted to get married, the white pastor agree. The white members didn't' want the black couple to get married in their church, so the pastor told them they could not get married in their church.  When I hear these types of stories regarding "Christians", I realize that they cannot be true Christians.


----------



## Laela (Nov 7, 2016)

ETA: Whether Obama or Clinton... real Christians can't be persuaded to abandon their belief/faith.


----------



## Laela (Nov 7, 2016)

Oh! The stories I've heard... It's one account, but mom got a good one when she'd visited a TX church.. This thread was a good one
https://longhaircareforum.com/threa...-that-have-me-wondering.584853/#post-14752373



ommns said:


> Re the bolded -   I cannot understand this at all. Do they really think there will be a white section in heaven? I was listening to a radio program, a pastor told a story of a black couple who attended a white church for years.  When they wanted to get married, the white pastor agree. The white members didn't' want the black couple to get married in their church, so the pastor told them they could not get married in their church.  When I hear these types of stories regarding "Christians", I realize that they cannot be true Christians.


----------



## ambergirl (Nov 7, 2016)

If this were true then more then half of Americans would be stinking to the high heavens. 

And dude in the video needs professional help....


----------



## Laela (Nov 8, 2016)

He really does .. SMH


ambergirl said:


> And dude in the video needs professional help....


----------



## momi (Nov 10, 2016)

HappilyLiberal said:


> She hasn't caused anyone to abandon their Christian values.  If they abandoned their Christian values they did so because they wanted to!



I said "he" and while the decision is theirs, prior to his presidency black folks weren't hardly supporting LGBT marriage. (as an example)  Now they are silent because they don't want to be seen as disagreeing with the first black POTUS so IMO that is abandoning your values.


----------



## momi (Nov 10, 2016)

Laela said:


> ETA: Whether Obama or Clinton... real Christians can't be persuaded to abandon their belief/faith.



Agreed sis...


----------



## Shimmie (Nov 11, 2016)

momi said:


> I said "he" and while the decision is theirs, prior to his presidency black folks weren't hardly supporting LGBT marriage. (as an example)  Now they are silent because they don't want to be seen as disagreeing with the first black POTUS so IMO that is abandoning your values.


@momi...  This is Soooooooooo true!    If it had been any other president, there'd be nothing.  

The majority of Black Folks sold their souls for President Obama.   Souls that Jesus died and paid for...IN FULL!  Yet, the insecurity of the Black community, sold out and the one to and for whom they sold out for...sold 'THEM' out.   Obama went all in for the gays and left the Blacks who loved and idolized him in the dust.


----------



## kanozas (Nov 17, 2016)

As even Omarosa declared, "....we are keeping a list" ( opposers and non-supporters), the hairs on the back of my neck just stood up.  I'm not saying it is him but it wouldn't take much at this point for any of this to happen along.  Read the next article as well, on DJT's promise to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  Oy vey.


http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/terrifying-end-world-book-pope-francis-wants-world-read/


* The Terrifying End Times Book that Pope Francis Wants the World to Read*
It’s not the first time Pope Francis has mentioned the 1907 novel by Robert Hugh Benson, but his recommendation appears to be due to the daunting warning that is...





by Geoffrey Grider January 29, 2015
*In an airplane news conference on his way back from the Philippines, Pope Frances referenced a 1907 book entitled “Lord of the World” and advised all of those in attendance to read it*
“And upon her forehead _was_ a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” *Revelation 17:5 (KJV)*

*From the day he became pope, NTEB has always maintained that Pope Francis was a man on a mission* and destined to fulfill end times bible prophecy in a big way. Evidentially, he would seem to agree with our assessment. The book he wants everyone to read is centered around two main people – the Antichrist and the Catholic pope. Seriously, we couldn’t make this stuff up.

It’s not the first time Pope Francis has mentioned the 1907 novel by Robert Hugh Benson, but *his recommendation appears to be due to the daunting warning that is contained in the novel’s plot line.*

*“Lord of the World” portrays a dystopian vision of the future* and culminates *in the final battle between humanism and Catholicism*, which eventually leads to Armageddon. The author depicts a Marxist world in which a charismatic senator from Vermont named Julian Felsenburgh promises world peace if world’s citizens follow him obediently.




*CLICK FOR MORE ON THIS STORY…*

*He is made president of Europe, and then the world*, due to his charisma and promises of utopia, but little remains known about him, even after his rise to power. He replaces the belief in God with secularism and tortures and kills those who oppose his doctrine.

*As it becomes clear that the Felsenburgh is, in fact, the “anti-Christ,”* the Pope gathers with the Cardinals in Rome in an effort to avoid the coming apocalypse. In the end, Felsenburgh ends up destroying Rome, killing the Pope and with the assistance of other world leaders and destroys the remaining vestiges of faith on Earth.

*Pope Francis has mentioned “Lord of the World” on several occasions* and says that it depicts what he refers to as “ideological colonization” and in a sermon in 2013 described it as depicting “the spirit of the world which leads to apostasy almost as if it were a prophecy.”

In his 2005 book “Literary Giants, Literary Catholics” British writer and former director of the Center for Faith and Culture at Aquinas College, Joseph Pearce described the book as a “..novel-nightmare” that “…is coming true before our very eyes.”

“The world depicted in Lord of the World is one where creeping secularism and godless humanism have triumphed over traditional morality. It is a world where philosophical relativism has triumphed over objectivity; a world where, in the name of tolerance, religious doctrine is not tolerated. It is a world where euthanasia is practiced widely and religion hardly practiced at all. The lord of this nightmare world is a benign-looking politician intent on power in the name of “peace”, and intent on the destruction of religion in the name of “truth”. In such a world, only a small and shrinking Church stands resolutely against the demonic “Lord of the World”

It is unclear whether Pope Francis believes that the apocalypse is nigh, but he clearly views the book as a warning to people of faith about the consequences of the choices that humanity makes.


----------



## kanozas (Nov 18, 2016)

momi said:


> I said "he" and while the decision is theirs, prior to his presidency black folks weren't hardly supporting LGBT marriage. (as an example)  Now they are silent because they don't want to be seen as disagreeing with the first black POTUS so IMO that is abandoning your values.




I think there are those who don't wish to be seen as racists etc. in a more pluralistic , "pc " society.  Though there is certainly racism against minorities here, people are very quick to point fingers at anyone who doesn't promote and unequivocally support gay the  lifestyle as a bigot.  Blacks aren't used to that charge.  Does anyone notice how it shifted from not judging oow  children to shacking up and now people are silenced on LGBT overreach.


----------

