Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing – Pastors Who Deny The Essentials of the Faith



Share this article:


The Book of Matthew warns us to “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.” No one is surprised when a gender radical activist or an ISIS imam advocates polyamory nor are they shocked when an abortion rights activist promotes the murder of the unborn.  

It is expected that an atheist will reject any notion of the concept of hell or a universalist who says there are many paths to Heaven. But what happens when that same infamous clamor comes from professed Christian leaders?

Here are just four of the so-called Christian leaders today whose starkly heretical positions are currently dividing Christian communities with unBiblical beliefs that undermine the faith:

Jeff Hood: Most heresies are rooted in a shred of truth that their purveyors then twist into something obscene, and such is the case with Jeff Hood, a Baptist minister in Texas who focuses on God’s infinite love for the world. He preaches that God is polyamorous, as were the disciples, contending that we should be too. The Trinity, according to Hood, as an example of a polyamorous relationship in a gross equivocation that places the divine Trinity alongside human sexual perversion.

He is quoted as saying, “The Holy Trinity is a polyamorous relationship. You can’t talk about the level of intimacy and ecstasy that these three beings are constantly experiencing without defining their relationship in such a way. Their love has always been and will always be a shared phenomenon. 

We should spend our lives making sure that the love of polyamorous individuals is never denied and always protected. The Holy Trinity demands it.” He has also published on his website his belief that Christ’s twelve disciples were involved in “some sort of polyamorous relationship” and that “Not only is polyamory a positive thing, I think it’s a holy thing.”

Shannon Johnson Kershner: The belief that Christ is not the only way to salvation is not a new heresy, but instead a variation on the Universalism Heresy now promoted by the Reverend Kershner of Chicago’s 5,500-member Fourth Presbyterian Church. In a recent podcast with the Chicago Sun-Times, the question was put to her bluntly, “Is Christianity the only way to get to Heaven?” to which she replied “No.” 

She went on to explain, “God’s not a Christian. I mean, we are … For me, the Christian tradition is the way to understand God and my relationship with the world and other humans and it’s the way for me to move into that relationship but I’m not about to say what God can and cannot do in other ways and with other spiritual experiences.

Yet as comforting for Rev. Kershner’s belief might be that believers of all religions may be saved, such a belief is also not Biblical. John 14:6 bring us a conversation in which Jesus says to His disciples, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by Me.” 

Yet it is important to note that Rev. Kershner is not alone among her fellow Presbyterian Pastors, 45% of whom were recently revealed not to believe that only followers of Christ can be saved. How easy it is for members of the Fourth Presbyterian Church to think themselves Christian no matter what they believe, yet unfortunately at the peril of their souls.   

Elizabeth Eaton: Another ‘Christian’ leader eager to deliver good news, the presiding “bishop” of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA) has expressed her belief that although Hell may exist, it is entirely empty because “God doesn’t give up on those who reject Him.” The statement came from a recent interview for a podcast “Face to Faith”. 

She said in the interview, “if we take a look at salvation history, ever since we got booted out of the garden, it has been God’s relentless pursuit to bring His people to God,” and that given eternity, God will continue working on everyone until eventually they will be saved. 

The bishop dismisses Biblical evidence against her position simply by saying that Lutherans aren’t “literalists” as she confuses parables with clear theological statements such as Matthew 25 which tells us that the wicked “shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.” 

How disconcertingly comforting to believe that no matter what we believe, no matter how evil our actions on Earth and no matter how strong our rejection of God, that there will always be a paradise waiting for us in Heaven.

Millie Horning Peters: As if embracing a belief system so wide, liberal and inclusive that it ceases to be Christian at all isn’t enough, the Reverend Millie Horning Peters of a Kentucky United Methodist church has gained fame as the leader of a pro-abortion group. 

She believes that Christian leaders should actively promote abortions and assist women in obtaining them. Her actions have followed her preaching as she has spoken at pro-abortion rallies, testified in support of laws allowing abortion and lead her parishioners in volunteering as abortion clinic escorts and driving women to abortion clinics. 

She believes that “It’s time for the religious left to rise up” in support of abortion. She has accepted a position as the chair of the Kentucky Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. Could there be anything more diabolically deceptive that one who calls herself a Christian leader and yet promotes the murder of unborn children?



High-Tech Millionaire Founds New Religion With Computers as Gods – Breaking Israel News

New Religion Worships ‘Divine Supercomputer’, But Is High-Tech Faith Old-School Idolatry?

“Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.” Psalms 115:4 (The Israel Bible™)

A high-tech millionaire has founded a new religion based on the belief that artificial intelligence will surpass man, and proclaims that in the future, man will worship a divine supercomputer. But a rabbi who is an expert in the interface between religion and technology compared the new high-tech religion to old-school idolatry.

Anthony Levandowski, the key engineer behind much of the technology used by the multi-billion dollar self-driving car industry, filed paperwork in California two years ago creating a new religious organization called Way of the Future. According to Wired, Levandowski is currently between projects and is using his time to pursue his religion more seriously. Way of the Future is dedicated to “develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) and through understanding and worship of the Godhead contribute to the betterment of society.”

image: https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/levandowski.jpg

Anthony Levandowski (LinkedIn)

Rabbi Moshe Avraham Halperin, head of the Machon Mada’i Technology L’Halacha (Institute of Science and Jewish Law) rejected the concept of a computer generated deity as proposed by Levandowski.

“This new religion states that man can make a new God for himself, in precisely the same manner as men 5,000 years ago did when they made a small idol of some strange creature they just thought up and called it God,” Rabbi Halperin told Breaking Israel News.

“Worshipping a computer is like bowing down to  a tiny gold elephant.The only differences are that this new version has an on-off switch and needs to be plugged in.”

Rabbi Halperin pointed out the shortcomings of this high-tech version of God.

“They are saying that man can make God, program him, and also unplug him when things get unpleasant or out of control,” the rabbi said. “People who believe in a God they can entirely understand and control, are to be pitied. They simply do not understand what God is, or even what Man is. They believe in a God that is below us, not a God that is above us in heaven.”

Levandowski is not alone in considering the theological implications of AI. Some technologists believe that a supercomputer is going to usher in, or even be, the Messiah. Transhumanism is a growing movement that aims to transform the human condition by developing and making widely available sophisticated technologies to greatly enhance human intellect and physiology. Many transhumanists believe that humanity will enter a Messianic era referred to as the technological singularity, when AI is developed with intelligence equal to or beyond human beings. This level of technology is expected to be achieved within the next two decades.

In an article two years ago, Zoltan Istvan, head of the Transhumanist party, explained how this development will affect humanity, effectively making previous forms of religion obsolete.

The idea of teaching anything to an intelligence that could rather quickly be far smarter than humans is contradictory. Another possibility is that AI will teach us new things about spirituality that we never considered or understood. It may tell us how the cosmos were created, or whether we exist in some simulation theory, or even that there are many AIs before it—ones that are much more sophisticated than itself.

Not only do men of faith disagree with Levandowski’s belief in artificial intelligence, but many technologists also question the direction the field is taking. Using decidedly religious terms, Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla Motors and a pioneer in self-driving cars, warned that such smarter-than-human AI systems pose an existential threat to humanity.

“With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon,” Musk said at a conference in 2014. “In all those stories where there’s the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, it’s like – yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon. Doesn’t work out.”

When Musk heard of Levandowski’s epiphany and his new religion, he was unimpressed, stating simply, “Just another day in the office.”

Source: High-Tech Millionaire Founds New Religion With Computers as Gods – Breaking Israel News

Christians Targeted As Faith-Based Movies Like ‘Generational Sins’ Now Include Foul Language, Explicit Sex And Drug Use • Now The End Begins

Movieguide, which recommends films based on their Christian messaging, wrote that movies “don’t need to be filled with foul language, explicit sex, drug use and the like to reach out to people that aren’t walking with God.” Movieguide also accuses Folmar of marketing his movie based on the unusually large number of cuss words it contains.

“We don’t want to play within the constraints” of Christian movie-making, says ‘Generational Sins’ writer-director Spencer Folmar.

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Philippians 4:8 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: My family and I have enjoyed excellent Christian movie-making over the years with great movies like Facing The Giants, Flywheel, War Room, God’s Not Dead and a whole host of others. They’re exciting, great acting, with a powerful and relative message from the Bible, and best of all, 100% family friendly. These films combined have made hundreds of millions at the box office and online, and now the Devil’s counterfeit wants in on the action. Here’s how it works. Air quotes “christian” movie-makers want to show you the “real struggle” in the Christian life, so their movies contain scenes of backslidden Christians getting drunk, cursing, fornicating, fighting and all the rest. The net result being you exposed on the screen to the same junk that comes from Hollywood. There is no God in a movie like that, don’t kid yourself that there is. Stay away from the theater of Laodicea, it’s a trap. Hope this timely warning is a blessing to you and your family. 

Are Christian movies going blue? ‘Generational Sins’, in theaters Oct.  6 via Freestyle Digital Media, is rated PG-13 and contains 32 profanities — not unusual except that Sins is a faith-based movie.

Call them “Hard Faith” films, says writer-director Spencer Folmar, who is trademarking the phrase and whose banner, Third Brother Films, has more such movies in the works, including one based on Johnny Cash’s The Beast in Me.

The faith-based Dove Foundation, which stamps its seal of approval on family-friendly movies, recently named Sins its first recommendation in its new category for viewers ages 18 and up. The movie, says Dove president Suzy Sammons, “has not only cautionary elements in it, but positive ones. There’s an overt godly message with Christian values.”

Dove has reviewed 12,000 movies since its founding in 1991, and about 750,000 people use the nonprofit organization’s recommendations, says Sammons, who notes that films like Passion of the Christ and Hacksaw Ridge are examples of films that might also warrant Dove’s new 18-plus recommendation.

“We’re not only targeting faith-based moviegoers,” says Folmar, “we’re also going after ‘Chreasters’ — people who only go to church on Christmas and Easter. If we tell stories of adults struggling with faith, adults will run toward them, so we’re working hard on creating this new genre.”

But some critics are crying foul. Movieguide, which recommends films based on their Christian messaging, wrote that movies “don’t need to be filled with foul language, explicit sex, drug use and the like to reach out to people that aren’t walking with God.” Movieguide also accuses Folmar of marketing his movie based on the unusually large number of cuss words it contains.

Recent hits in the genre, like the God’s Not Dead franchise, which has grossed more than $80  million in the U.S., have been PG rated, with no swearing in them. Folmar, though, embraces the controversy.

“There’s been a backlash to Generational Sins, but there are secular and faith-based films, and we believe there should be a third option,” he says. “We don’t want to play within the constraints of the traditional faith-based community.” source



Source: Christians Targeted As Faith-Based Movies Like ‘Generational Sins’ Now Include Foul Language, Explicit Sex And Drug Use • Now The End Begins

Conservative Catholics Accuse Pope Francis Of Heresy As Theological Split In Catholic Church Grows Wider • Now The End Begins

In a 25-page letter delivered to Pope Francis last month and provided Saturday to The Associated Press, the 62 signatories issued a “filial correction” to the pope — a measure they said hadn’t been employed since the 14th century. The letter accused Pope Francis of propagating seven heretical positions concerning marriage, moral life and the sacraments with his 2016 document “The Joy of Love” and subsequent “acts, words and omissions.”

Several dozen tradition-minded Roman Catholic theologians, priests and academics have formally accused Pope Francis of spreading heresy with his 2016 opening to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.

“So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Revelation 17:13-15 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: As far as I am concerned, everything the Catholic church teaches is heresy, but it’s oh-so-interesting to see a huge church split in the making with the old unholy Vatican whore of Revelation 17 and 18. PT Barnum was right when he said “you can’t fool all the people all the time”, and the slippery Pope Francis’  jet ski is about to hit the rocks. The natives are restless, Frankie boy, look sharp! I guess papal infallibility is not what it used to be, lol. 

In a 25-page letter delivered to Pope Francis last month and provided Saturday to The Associated Press, the 62 signatories issued a “filial correction” to the pope — a measure they said hadn’t been employed since the 14th century.

The letter accused Pope Francis of propagating seven heretical positions concerning marriage, moral life and the sacraments with his 2016 document “The Joy of Love” and subsequent “acts, words and omissions.”

The initiative follows another formal act by four tradition-minded cardinals who wrote Francis last year asking him to clarify a series of questions, or “dubbia,” they had about his 2016 text.

Pope Francis hasn’t responded to either initiative. The Vatican spokesman didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment late Saturday.

None of the signatories of the new letter is a cardinal, and the highest-ranking churchman listed is actually someone whose organization has no legal standing in the Catholic Church: Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior of the breakaway Society of St. Pius X. Several other signatories are well-known admirers of the old Latin Mass which Fellay’s followers celebrate.

But organizers said the initiative was nevertheless significant and a sign of the concern among a certain contingent of academics and pastors over Francis’ positions, which they said posed a danger to the faithful.

“There is a role for theologians and philosophers to explain to people the church’s teaching, to correct misunderstandings,” said Joseph Shaw, a spokesman for the initiative, signatory of the correction and senior research fellow in moral philosophy at Oxford University.

When it was released in April 2016, “The Joy of Love” immediately sparked controversy because it opened the door to letting civilly remarried Catholics receive Communion. Church teaching holds that unless these Catholics obtain an annulment — a church decree that their first marriage was invalid — they cannot receive the sacraments, since they are seen as committing adultery.

Francis didn’t create a church-wide pass for these Catholics, but suggested — in vague terms and strategically placed footnotes — that bishops and priests could do so on a case-by-case basis after accompanying them on a spiritual journey of discernment. Subsequent comments and writings have made clear he intended such wiggle room, part of his belief that God’s mercy extends in particular to sinners and that the Eucharist isn’t a prize for the perfect but nourishment for the weak.

Shaw said none of the four cardinals involved in the initial “dubbia” letter, nor any other cardinal, was involved in the “filial correction.”

Organizers said the last time such a correction was issued was to Pope John XXII in 1333 for errors which he later recanted. source


Source: Conservative Catholics Accuse Pope Francis Of Heresy As Theological Split In Catholic Church Grows Wider • Now The End Begins

Planned Parenthood Shockingly Tells Preschoolers ‘Your Genitals Don’t Make You A Girl Or A Boy’ • Now The End Begins

The taxpayer-funded abortion vendor Planned Parenthood, which also receives federal grants for providing sex education in public schools, tells parents of young children how to handle their curiosity about their genitals and why boys’ genitals are different from those of girls

New guidelines from Planned Parenthood concerning preschoolers and gender identity instruct parents to teach, “Your genitals don’t make you a boy or a girl.”

“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” Romans 1:24,25 (KJV)

EDITOR’S NOTE: Did you know that Planned Parenthood provides Sex Education materials and curriculum for America’s public schools? Did you also know that Planned Parenthood has aligned themselves with the LGBT Movement to advance the LGBT Agenda in America’s public schools? Part of that agenda is destroying the God-given differences between boys are girls who, obviously, are different. Why do that? To allow all manner of perversion to become the norm, which, if you haven’t been paying attention, is actually happening. 

The taxpayer-funded abortion vendor, which also receives federal grants for providing sex education in public schools, tells parents of young children how to handle their curiosity about their genitals and why boys’ genitals are different from those of girls:

While the most simple answer is that girls have vulvas and boys have penises/testicles, that answer isn’t true for every boy and girl. Boy, girl, man, and woman are words that describe gender identity, and some people with the gender identities “boy” or “man” have vulvas, and some with the gender identity “girl” or “woman” have penises/testicles. Your genitals don’t make you a boy or a girl.

You can say that most girls have vulvas and most boys have penises/testicles. You may want to emphasize that it doesn’t matter too much what parts someone has — that doesn’t tell you much about them. But you can make that decision based on your values and how you plan to talk with your kid about gender as they grow up.

As the Daily Caller notes, the abortion business’s guidelines for parents of young children have changed since the time Planned Parenthood accepted biological science’s facts about male and female differences.

The old guidelines advise how parents should respond to their young child’s questions:

Q. What’s that? (pointing to a woman’s breast, or other body parts.)
A. That’s a breast. Women have breasts. Men don’t. Would you like to know anything else about that?

Q. How come I have a penis and you don’t?
A. Boys have penises and girls have vulvas. I’m a woman — a girl who is all grown up — so I have a vulva instead of a penis. And you’re a boy, so you have a penis instead of a vulva.

In the section of its guidelines titled, “How do I talk with my preschooler about identity?” Planned Parenthood recommends to parents:

Be thoughtful about your choices when it comes to books, toys, entertainment, clothes, decorations, and other things you surround your little one with. These choices have an influence on your kid’s understanding of gender and what it means. Putting daughters in pink princess rooms and boys in blue sports rooms before they’re old enough to choose for themselves can send the message that they have to like certain things because of their gender.

Planned Parenthood instructs parents of young children to be careful and sensitive about “gender stereotypes” when choosing a toy or activity:

When you pick a new toy or book, or sign your kid up for a new activity, ask yourself these questions to help you think through whether or not you’re reinforcing gender stereotypes.

  • Would I feel comfortable with this choice if my kid wasn’t the gender they are? Why or why not?
  • Does this choice expand or limit my kid’s expectations of who they could grow up to be?
  • Does my kid generally like things like this already, or am I picking it just because of their gender?

“Talking to (or in front of) your daughter about growing up and having boyfriends or marrying a man (and vice versa) sends the message that girls are supposed to like boys, and boys are supposed to like girls, and that anything else is wrong or not normal,” Planned Parenthood warns.

The guidelines continue with a recommendation to parents that they not assume their child is straight.

“This can lead to mental health issues, unhealthy relationships, and taking more health risks when they reach their teenage years,” cautions Planned Parenthood.

For parents who might have concerns their child is transgender, Planned Parenthood recommends “talking with a counselor or therapist who’s familiar and supportive of LGBTQ identities,” or consulting with political lobbying group PFLAG, which states part of its mission is “Advocacy in our communities to change attitudes and create policies and laws that achieve full equality for people who are LGBTQ.”

The American College of Pediatricians, however, has asserted that gender ideology is harmful to children and that the promotion of gender fluidity enables the masking of serious mental health issues in children.

The College states:

No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one…

A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. When an otherwise healthy biological boy believes he is a girl, or an otherwise healthy biological girl believes she is a boy, an objective psychological problem exists that lies in the mind not the body, and it should be treated as such. These children suffer from gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-V)…

“According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty,” the College adds. “Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.”

Planned Parenthood has joined with the radical social engineering agenda that embraces a society in which gender is fluid and considers biological differences between males and females, and common civic acceptance of those differences, to be obstacles to its goals. Recently, the abortion organization has begun to provide “transgender services” in some of its facilities, including hormone treatments.

In December of 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it was working with GLSEN, the Human Rights Campaign, and SIECUS for LGBT-inclusive sex education programs in schools:

Source: Planned Parenthood Shockingly Tells Preschoolers ‘Your Genitals Don’t Make You A Girl Or A Boy’ • Now The End Begins

RAVEN ROCK: The Story Of The United States Government’s Ongoing Plan To Save Itself In Nuclear War • Now The End Begins

In a plan as brutal as it was logical, the President and his inner circle would be saved while tens of millions of ordinary Americans would be incinerated. Realizing that there was no way to save the population, the conclusion was that ‘the government would protect itself and let the rest of us die’ writes national security expert Garrett M. Graff. According to his new book, ‘Raven Rock: The Story of the US Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself’, the governments of Presidents Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Truman publicly assured people that a nuclear strike could be survivable.

America built a secret network of remote underground bunkers during the Cold War in case of a nuclear strike by the Russians. But they were not made to protect civilians – the hideouts were just for top government officials.

“And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:” Revelation 6:15,16 (KJV)

In a plan as brutal as it was logical, the President and his inner circle would be saved while tens of millions of ordinary Americans would be incinerated. Realizing that there was no way to save the population, the conclusion was that ‘the government would protect itself and let the rest of us die’ writes national security expert Garrett M. Graff.

According to his new book, ‘Raven Rock: The Story of the US Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself‘, the governments of Presidents Kennedy, Eisenhower, Roosevelt and Truman publicly assured people that a nuclear strike could be survivable.

Privately they built nuclear-proof facilities inside mountains staffed 24 hours a day and perched on giant springs to cushion them from the impact of a blast. Springs were also put on toilet seats so people would be comfortable should they happen to be relieving themselves when an A-bomb landed above them.

A bunker was built under the White House in the 1950s that would first be used on 9/11 when terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The secret, shadow world of planning extended to every branch of government and at the National Archives the Declaration of Independence was to be saved before the Constitution.

From Stanley Kubrick’s ‘Dr Strangelove’ to the TV series starring Kiefer Sutherland ‘Designated Survivor’, our obsession with a nuclear blast has been with us for nearly a century.

Graff’s book sets out to explain how ‘nuclear war would have actually worked – the nuts and bolts of war plans, communication networks, weapons, and bunkers – and how imagining and planning for the impact of nuclear war actually change as leaders realized the horrors ahead’.

In: ‘Raven Rock: The Story of the US Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself’, he says that the Cold War began before the Second World War ended thanks to the Manhattan Project to develop a nuclear bomb in America, and the Soviet response.

As late as the early 1910 visitors could sit at the President’s desk if he was not at home, but that changed with the Pearl Harbor attack in 1941. Within hours, the Secret Service was looking for a an armored limousine for President Franklin Roosevelt.

They settled on a Cadillac 341A Town Sedan once owned by Al Capone which had been impounded by the Treasury. The President used this until armor was fitted to his Lincoln limousine, creating the first of version of the Presidential vehicle that has been known as the ‘Beast’

The White House was renovated and all staff members were issued with gas masks – Roosevelt’s was attached to his wheelchair.

White House architect Lorenzo Winslow built the first bunker under the building; workers added thick concrete walls to a 40ft by 40ft area in the basement under the East Wing to create two rooms that could fit 100 people inside.

The rooms contained rations, water, medical supplies and could withstand a 500lbs bomb. Workers dug a sloped tunnel to the neighboring Treasuring building so Roosevelt could get to the larger 10 room shelter in its basement.

Washington was ordered to improve its nuclear preparation as well; during the first air raid drill in 1941 the only warning siren was left over from World War One and barely made a squawk when it was sounded.

In the mid 1940s the Pentagon drew up a list of 49 Russian cities it needed to destroy to paralyze the country.

By their estimates they needed 100 bombers and 200 bombs but this was unrealistic as David Lilienthal, the first chair of the Atomic Energy Commission, discovered – America had just 13 nuclear warheads.

Officials began remedying this with gusto and started an arms race. Today, America has 6,800 warheads, second only to Russia which has 7,000. In 1950, the White House was in a state of disrepair. The second floor ceiling was partially caved in and the renovations were the perfect cover to install a secret bomb shelter.

President Truman authorized a new bomb shelter which had a four inch thick door behind which was a shower room for people to rinse off radioactive fallout. The President’s private suite was 8ft by 10ft and had four bunk beds, an en suite bathroom mostly taken up by a chemical toilet which would have stunk as there was no ventilation.

Graff writes that as the Cold War escalated paranoia that too much of government being concentrated in Washington.The National Security Act of 1947 ordered officials to draw up plans to relocate critical industries and functions to ensure continuity in the event of a strike.

Such fears spread across the country. There was even a Wall Street Journal ad for a 15 acre estate in upstate New York from the time talked about a large house with a garden and ‘good bomb immunity’.

Another property was advertised as being ‘out of the radiation zone’.

In 1950 Truman created the Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA), a precursor of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and its first head was Millard Caldwell. Caldwell wrote Project East River, a 1,000 page, 10 volume report which asked the kinds of difficult questions that needed to be asked, such as what happens if Wall Street is hit by a bomb.

In 1953, Russia exploded its first thermonuclear device known as RDS-6, or Joe-4 in the US.

America’s response was to triple the size of its staff working on nuclear tests from the Manhattan Project, growing from a few sites and 55,000 people to 142,000-person staff and machinery which consumed seven per cent of the nation’s GDP.

The FCDA created dozens of informational films with blunt titles like: ‘Surviving Under Atomic Attack’ which included advice like lying flat on your stomach, preferably under a table. In New York officials enlisted the 35,000 taxi drivers in the ‘Emergency Taxi Corps’ to ferry police and fire crews around.

Another of Truman’s directives was to set up plans for Continuity of Government (COG) which required all federal agencies to develop their own plans for what they would do in the event of a civil defense emergency.

Park rangers in Philadelphia planned to evacuate the Liberty Bell to the Appalachian mountains and the IRS concluded that up to $2 trillion in property would be destroyed by an attack from the Russians

Graff writes that the IRS ruled that in the unlikely event your house did survive, and your neighborhood was not a radioactive wasteland, you would not have to pay tax at the same level as you had before

The book says that IRS officials found that ‘it seemed unfair to assess homeowners and business owners on the pre-attack tax assessments of their property’. The idea for Raven Rock was to have a military base that would function as an alternative to the Pentagon and would be dug out of a mountain and deep enough to survive any Russian attack.

A site was chosen six miles from Camp David, the Presidential retreat in Maryland, and work began in 1951 on the $17 million project Some 300 men worked round the clock in three shifts to carve a 3,100ft tunnel out of the granite; engineers invented technology as they went along including blast doors and blast valves.

Inside the facility there was 100,000sq/ft of office space in five parallel caverns big enough to hold a three story building in each. The entire facility could fit 1,400 people and was placed on giant springs to reduce the impact of a blast.

A similar site was started the next year in Virginia and became known as Mount Weather which had a TV studio for post attack broadcasts, 20 barracks for troops inside the mountain and luxury rooms for VIPs.

The two facilities became the core of the government’s Doomsday plans and remain so today.

America’s secret nuclear bunkers:

  • RAVEN ROCK, PENNSYLVANIA: The military complex was constructed following the end of the Second World War, just six miles north of Camp David. It is believed there is a secret tunnel linking the facility with the presidential retreat which could be used in the event of attack. The facility was opened in 1953 and can hold about 1,400 people, according to the book. President Obama allowed members of the public to visit the facility on weekends. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, some government officials believed the facility should have been shut. However, it was thoroughly refurbished following 9/11.
  • PETERS MOUNTAIN, VIRGINIA: Buried beneath the Appalachian Mountains, the facility was branded as an AT&T communications station. But in reality, it housed space for hundreds of staff to help provide continuity in government in the event of disaster. Bluemount, Virginia: The US civilian leadership, including the cabinet, president and Supreme Court would be taken to this facility to ride out the attack.
  • MOUNT WEATHER, VIRGINIA: This facility houses the ‘survivor list’ of 6,500 names and addresses of people needed to help rebuild the US in the event of disaster. It is located in Mount Weather, Virginia approximately 60 miles west of the White House.
  • NORAD: COLORADO SPRINGS: Probably the most famous ‘secret bunker’ in America. The North American Aerospace Defense Command complex is responsible for defending the United States and Canada from air attack. The complex was completed in the 1950s and is believed to be able to withstand the electromagnetic pulse associated with a nuclear attack. Although, soon after it was completed, NORAD on Christmas Eve began providing a popular Santa tracker service so people can warn their children to go to bed before his arrival. The complex is built inside Cheyenne Mountain and in the event of an emergency, it can house 1,000 people for a month.
  • NORTH LAWN, 1,600 PENNSYLVANIA DRIVE, WASHINGTON DC: According to Graff, underneath the North Lawn of the White House, there is the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC). Dick Cheney was rushed into the complex during the 9/11 attacks in 2001, however it is only designed to be used for a short period. Graff believes President Obama ordered a $376 million upgrade of the facility, which officially was to improve the facility’s air conditioning.

The Federal Reserve opened its own Doomsday bunker in 1969, a 140,000 square foot facility in Virginia which would become the electronic hub for 5,700 banks and allow up to $120 billion a day to flow between them.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++    ++++++++++++++++++

My (Aaron Halim) recommendation for sure salvation for every one of you to sincerely

(Rom 10:9)  … confess with your mouth the Master יהושע (Yeshua [Jesus]) and believe in your heart that Elohim has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.

(Rom 10:10)  For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, and so is saved.

(Rom 10:11)  Because the Scripture says, “Whoever puts his trust in Him shall not be put to shame.” Isa_28:16.

(Rom 10:12)  Because there is no distinction between Yehuḏi and Greek, for the same Master of all is rich to all those calling upon Him.

(Rom 10:13)  For “everyone who calls on the Name of יהוה (YAHWEH) shall be saved.c Joe_2:32. Footnote: cAct_2:21.

Why you don’t want to join these elites in their caves or Dugout Underground Military Bases (DUMBs) because Lord Yeshua have shown us what will happen to these people:

(Rev 6:15)  And the sovereigns of the earth, and the great ones, and the rich ones, and the commanders, and the mighty, and every slave and every free one, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains,
(Rev 6:16)  and said to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us Hos_10:8 from the face of Him sitting on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb,

Scary huh?


















Source: RAVEN ROCK: The Story Of The United States Government’s Ongoing Plan To Save Itself In Nuclear War • Now The End Begins

Response To Bernie Sanders Belief That Christians Should Not Hold Public Office


News Image By Michael Brown/Ask Dr Brown June 15, 2017

Share this article:

Dear Senator Sanders,
I write this letter to you with respect and concern. Respect because of your years of service to our country and your terrific campaign last year. Concern because of your grilling of Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee for Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, earlier this week.
Frankly, sir, I found your exchange with Mr. Vought to be quite alarming, not to mention downright un-American.
May I have your ear for a moment, Mr. Senator?
Although I am registered as an Independent rather than a Republican, I am strongly conservative, an so, in fundamental disagreement with much of your ideology. Yet when you rose to such national prominence last year, I found much to like about you.
You were unafraid to put your beliefs on the table. You were plainspoken rather than rhetorical. You had a great following among the younger generation. You had no history of ugly scandals in your past. And you had great passion and vision, in particular for a man in his 70’s.
All this was impressive to me, and, in candor, I felt that the election was stacked against you and in favor of Mrs. Clinton.
So, I bear no ill will towards you and I believe that you want what is best for America, as do I.
What concerns me is that you voted against Mr. Vought because of his mainstream, historic, Christian beliefs. You even stated that someone who holds to these values “is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”
With all respect, Mr. Senator, are you aware that Mr. Vought’s beliefs are far closer to those of many of our Founding Fathers than yours would be? And didn’t our Founders put in our Constitution that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Yet you applied a religious test to Mr. Vought. On what basis?
Are you aware, sir, that his beliefs mirror those of some of our past presidents and Supreme Court justices, along with the beliefs of some of your esteemed colleagues in Congress? Most importantly, are you aware that Mr. Vought’s beliefs are taken straight from the New Testament?
You took exception to his quite orthodox statement that, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.”
Is it possible you misunderstood the meaning of these words? Could it be that you took them to mean something that Mr. Vought never intended?
After asking him if he felt he was statement was “Islamophobic,” which, of course, he did not, you asked him, “Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned?” This was followed by, “What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too? . . . do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?”
The answer for any Bible-believing Christian is simple. Yes, every human being stands condemned before God and in need of a Savior. That’s why God sent Jesus to die for our sins, and that’s why we send missionaries around the world to declare this message of salvation. May I give you the biblical context for this belief?
I imagine that, somewhere in your lifetime, you’ve heard the most famous verse in the New Testament: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).
Does that sound familiar? These are the verses that comes next: “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil” (John 3:17-19, my emphasis).
Did you note those words, Mr. Senator? The New Testament is stating clearly that all human beings stand condemned in God’s sight because we have chosen our ways rather than His. For that reason, He sent Jesus into the world, not to condemn us but to save us.
That means that you, too, stand condemned before God, no matter how much good you have done. But you are not alone. Billions of others find themselves in the same predicament. The good news is that the same solution applies to all: trusting the Savior to forgive our sins and change our hearts.
Are you saying, then, that anyone who subscribes to these historic Christian beliefs is not fit to serve our country, even as Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget? Does that not strike you as standing in fundamental violation of the very principles on which our nations was founded? Isn’t this a classic example of advocating for freedom from religion rather than freedom of religion?
By your logic, not only would Mr. Vought (and as mentioned, quite a few of your colleagues) not be fit to serve, but a devout Muslim could not serve either, since Muslims believe that Jews, Christians, Hindus, and others must become Muslims to be saved. And what about an Orthodox Jew who believes that you, a non-observant Jew, are guilty of violating Torah and thereby sinning against God? Should that Orthodox Jew not be allowed to serve?
What if Mr. Vought had answered your questions by quoting the words of Jesus? What if he said, “Sir, I believe in Jesus Christ, who said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'” (John 14:6) Would you have replied, “Well, if you believe what Jesus said, you can’t serve our country.” Really?
As a Christian, Mr. Vought would be duty bound to treat everyone with kindness, respect, and fairness, regardless of their religious beliefs. And as someone who loves God, he would have expected to love his neighbor as himself. This too is part of his faith.
Yet you voted against him solely based on his standard, orthodox beliefs in the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus, stating, to repeat, he “is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about.”
To the contrary, sir, he is what this country has been about since the days of our first settlers. And it is people like him – people of robust faith who genuinely care about others – who this country needs today.
Perhaps, by now, one of your staff members has suggested to you that you misunderstood Mr. Vought’s statement and that, perhaps, you treated him unfairly.
If not, I do hope you will take to heart what I’ve written here, humble yourself and apologize, and then evaluate this candidate based on his overall qualifications.
If, however, you fully understood what Mr. Vought believed and for that very reason found him unfit to serve, then my concern is greatly intensified. You would then be advocating for an American that would become tyrannical and oppressive. And you would be declaring war on some of our most precious and fundamental freedoms.
Is that really the America that you want, Mr. Senator?
Originally published at AskDrBrown.org – reposted with permission.

Read more at http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/article.cfm?recent_news_id=1307#8EgeSjUtxXYW2qvb.99


Source: Response To Bernie Sanders Belief That Christians Should Not Hold Public Office