Monday, May 28, 2012

Memorial Day 2012 Commemorates Past, Present, and Future Americans

Jesus Christ and the American Soldier quote by Irene Whiteside, Irene Whiteside is quoted as the author of this heartfelt message. Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you. Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul. The other died for your freedom. This image is featured in the Conspiracy Paranormal blog article titled Memorial Day 2012 Commemorates Past, Present, and Future Americans, posted May 28, 2012. Visit conspiracyparanormal. for unique perspectives on Conspiracy Theories and Paranormal Phenomena.

Memorial Day 2012, we commemorate the sacrifice of so many Americans who have given so much to secure our liberty and preserve our sovereignty. Thank you to all who have served and sacrificed lives and comforts and efforts to bless America with freedom. And thanks be to God for inspiring and sustaining America’s Founding Fathers and all sincere patriots who have endeavored and who will yet endeavor to uphold and honor the Constitution. Cursed be those who seek to dismantle it.

Today, America is threatened by internal enemies that are, in many ways, more devastating to liberty and sovereignty than any external enemy has ever been. Seldom in recent decades have we had a selection of presidential candidates that did not end up being a choice between the lesser of two evils.

The year 2008 was definitely a year in which there were no truly good presidential candidates left in the running by November. We were forced to choose between two evils. We elected the worst evil this nation has ever chosen. We are paying dearly for our asinine blunder.

But, there is hope. And I’m not talking about 2008-style hope. I'm not talking about the hope of those who seek entitlements and handouts from the government, having done little or nothing to earn it while being able-bodied, entirely capable of having worked for their own sustenance. Notice I did not mention a sound mind. Those who voted for the single most unvetted and obscure individual in American history, and the economic terrorism he ignited after November, 2008 were not of sound mind. If you continue in that vein for 2012, you are traitors and apostates. I am describing half of the population of the United States. That is a sad and perilous state of affairs.

Now, for the first time in decades, we are blessed with a clear choice between good and evil. For once in our lives, we have a stark demarcation between right and wrong. So, let’s get it right, America.

I implore you with all the energy of my soul that you do not waste this rare opportunity to elect a truly good and honest president in a time when your country most urgently needs rescue from the clutches of internal despotism. There will probably never be another opportunity like this.

We cannot remain idle and say that God has not granted us a realization of our error and a way to overcome it. The choice is literally black and white. It’s as clear as night and day. There is no gray area to hide behind or to obscure our reasoning or cloud our judgment. We know what must be done, and we are left without excuse.

The choice we confront today is as obvious as the choice we faced before this earth was created. We who have been born elected good. We aligned ourselves with Jesus Christ.

One third of humanity pertaining to this earth chose evil and aligned with Lucifer. You know how that turned out.

You have been born. That means you once voted for good and aligned yourself with Christ. Having once chosen well, why would you now dissent to the side of the adversary and elect evil? Why would you vote for Satan when you can see the results of doing so? Over the past four years, have you not learned by your own experience to distinguish between good and evil?

A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for that which is good. A vote for Harrison J. Bounel, Barry Soetoro, Barack Hussein Obama, or whatever he calls himself for political expediency, is a vote for evil. There is no gray area. There is no moderate or center ground. Be right or be wrong. Reap the fruits of your vote.

Those of you out there who hold the Priesthood of Almighty God know exactly what I am talking about. If you vote for Lucifer’s insurgent in this election, you are trifling with that which God has bestowed upon you, and you will be held accountable for it.

Straighten up and vote right.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Hope in Chains 2012 Anti-Obama Political Bumper Sticker

"When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends."
-Japanese Proverb

Hope in Chains anti-Obama political bumper sticker, New controversial political bumper sticker design from Lavanimal's 2012 Pre-election Colletion

New, Original, Limited Edition, Vinyl 3x10 inch Weather Resistant Bumper Sticker. This sticker is made to stick on cars, desks, books, mirrors, luggage, or almost any smooth, clean, dry surface.

The sticker can survive sub-zero temperatures after application. For best results, the surface on which you want to apply the sticker should be at least 50 degrees Fahrenheit when you first stick the sticker onto the surface.

This sticker is weather resistant. It should last at least one year outside, and much longer if kept in a garage or indoors. Display it proudly. Help reclaim America.

Buy this unique and rare collectible 2012 anti-Obama bumper sticker today. This limited edition sticker is an original design from Lavanimal's 2012 Pre-election Collection.

Add these hilarious and ironically appropriate political bumper stickers to your 2012 repertoire before they sell out.

Order these fine bumper stickers on eBay or buy directly from me. Each collectible 2012 elections anti-Obama bumper sticker in my Lavanimal Pre-election Collection includes Free Shipping anywhere in the United States, including Alaska, Hawaii, and APO addresses.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

President Ronald Reagan stands squarely with Founding Fathers of our Great Christian Nation

Sunday, May 6, 2012

Education: Drawing the Line. Copyright © 2012 Tia C. Rex at Brigham Young University - Idaho

I am honored to include the following research essay by guest author, Tia C. Rex. It is extremely well written and well sourced. I could not have said it better myself.


American tradition considers education the responsibility of parents with support from communities and states in which they reside. Whether or not education is the responsibility of parents and localities or that of the federal government has been an issue in America for decades. The formation of the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) and its programs intend to increase student performance and teacher quality but fall short of any measurable improvement in these areas. Since its inception, local reforms are thwarted, test scores remain stagnant, spending increases over time, teacher incentives are ineffective, and programs fail to accomplish educational improvement. Students’ educational needs have been unmet under the tutelage of the USDE. The Department has gradually expanded its powers until little educational oversight is determined by local public. The public can reclaim educational power by using correct information to reason with their representatives for ceasing education spending and eliminating federal involvement in education.

Keywords: education, reform, teacher incentive, student performance

Education has been important to Americans since its founding. A student learns through educational processes. Proper education considers multiple facets of the student’s life that improve academic achievement and motivate the child for further learning. Although learning is a student’s responsibility, parents have the ultimate right to facilitate education for their children. Families and local communities are best equipped to meet the educational needs of the whole child. The public constitutes individuals that make up families, communities and states within the nation. Allowing the federal government to make decisions about education diminishes local ability to direct education. Due to the failure of the U.S. Department of Education to meet the needs of students, the public should reclaim educational power.

The public and its representatives did not want the federal government to have too much power over education. According to the USDE Office of Communications and Outreach (2010) in the “Overview of the Department of Education”, President Andrew Johnson created the first Department of education in 1867 to “collect information and statistics about the nation’s schools. However, due to concern that the Department would exercise too much control over local schools, the new Department was demoted to an Office of Education in 1868” (p. 3). Local schools need to be controlled by local administrators who recognize the issues facing the student and can integrate needed adjustments to educate the child. The demotion of the department was taken to reduce the amount of power the federal government could wield over local education leaving it to States. In recent history that action has been thwarted.

Congress acknowledges the responsibility of parents to educate their children, and the responsibility of localities to support parental effort. However, if the public, parents and students are increasingly involved in federal education programs they would systematically be removed from authority in the educational structure. Congress passed Public Law 96-88 called the “Department of Education Organization Act” in October of 1979. The law declares that “parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children, and States, localities, and private institutions have the primary responsibility for supporting that parental role” (sec. 101, para. 3). Contrary to this declaration the third purpose “to encourage the increased involvement of the public, parents, and students in federal education programs” (sec. 102, para. 3) would deny parents and communities their responsibility to educate their children. The more they exercise the right to educate through involvement and community support, the more the federal government has the power to administer educational programs. The conflict over who gets authority to determine education is cyclic. Parents and local schools provide education, but as they do, the federal government undermines their efforts with overbearing and inefficient programs.

Although parents and responsible citizens have a vested interest in the education of children, the USDE determines how to educate children in America. The Constitution omits any mention of federal control over education. Any omission of powers to the federal government in the Constitution is intended for the entities responsible to have control of such powers. In the case of education, that authority would be the parents with support from the public immediately surrounding them. The founders intentionally organized the document to limit the powers of a central government, knowing that an over abundance of authority in any office of government would result in the loss of freedoms to its people.

The abolishment of the USDE is encouraged in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” If the Constitution does not say who has power to determine education that power is left to each state to determine. The federal government has disregarded the 10th Amendment through the creation and expansion of the USDE.

Author David Stephens (1984) writing for Political Science Quarterly observes that when President Carter began the development of the USDE, the National Education Association (NEA) was an influential interest group (p. 641). This teachers union had the ability to determine political outcomes and promote self interest. Stephens (1984) recalls:

About one-fifth of the 300 pro-education candidates supported by the NEA in 1976 were Republicans. The NEA’s leadership believed, however, that Democratic administrations were more sympathetic than Republican ones to public education and to the liberal social goals of the NEA. Consequently, they directed the association’s efforts into the process of nominating the Democratic presidential candidate. (p. 643)

Many of the views and ideologies backing the establishment of the USDE were those of members and leaders of the NEA who pushed for political agendas to suit their desires rather than the educational needs of students.

The NEA opposes the most effective forms of local reform because of its desire for self-interest. For example, in the documentary Waiting for “Superman”, local superintendent Michelle Rhee could not implement plans for teacher improvement because the NEA refused to allow a vote. The existing educational system was so complex and solid that her reforms for student needs could not be accomplished. She learned that education was not about student needs; it was about politics and adult self-interests (January 26, 2010).

With the formation of the USDE public schools no longer belonged to the public. Stephens (1984) suggests, “Perhaps the greatest obstacle faced by the supporters of a federal department was the American tradition that education was a state and local matter” (p. 642). Once the public began relinquishing responsibility to educate their own, through the gradual rise of the USDE, the distance of education supervision reflected the interest of the administrators not families and communities.

The public plays a major role in allowing government to control education. David Mathews (2002), in his book Why Public Schools, Whose Public Schools? What Early Communities Have to Tell Us mentions that people in America have a hunch that education isn’t fulfilling its purpose, but they do not think they can fix it (pp. 18-19). Mathews also suggests the public can have great power and begin to make enduring social changes; that when civilians have ownership in decisions it creates durable political power (p. 215). People may think that they cannot fix education in America because of their view of the USDE. Perhaps they believe it is the government’s responsibility, or that the system is too complex among others. However, if people unite to make wanted changes through informed voting and reasoning with representatives, changes they accomplish tend to be long-lasting.

To reclaim education in America the public must unite in purpose. Sean Riley (2007), for Baylor University finds that individuals’ “highest cause bring them into community with other people who share that cause, and it is this core community that provides the arena for them to live an ethical and meaningful life” (p. 94). Applying this concept to reclamation of education; as people become correctly informed about what the USDE is doing, they may begin to unite in a “highest cause” of reclaiming education from the federal government to a point where their educational aims are met in an environment that is “ethical and meaningful” to them and their children.

Under “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) many children continue to suffer academically as teachers struggle to comply with federal standards. Lisa Guisbond and Monty Neill, FairTest researcher and executive director (2004) explain that NCLB aspires to bring struggling students to an acceptable level of academic skill and improve teacher instruction. The NCLB program is based on standardized testing and sanctions that are not proven but ensure failure for many public schools (p. 13). Sanctions are federal allowances. The threat of losing them undermines teacher instruction. Guisbond & Neill (2004) suggest that schools have adjusted curriculum to comply with testing standards. Under this federal mandate, teachers teach for testing results rather than for student learning (p. 14). Teachers implementing NCLB are pressured to restrict their teaching to test passing in order to help their schools qualify for federal funding. This kind of manipulation is not positive motivation for teachers. Students do not benefit from this system of limited purpose either. Students and their parents, as well as community members may have aspiration for well-rounded education, but with NCLB that aim is hindered severely in order to comply with federal funding qualifications.

Voters believe tax dollars help improve education. According to a Gallop Poll by Bushaw & McNee (2009), “lack of money was listed as the number one obstacle to prevent schools from moving in the right direction” (p.20). Many citizens recognize there are problems with education in America, and assume spending more on the programs will aid reform.

Although the public may respond in favor of tax dollars collected for education, taxes spent on education do not increase student achievement. Edward H. Crane (2003), editor of Cato Handbook for Congress 108th: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress acknowledges, “American taxpayers have spent virtually billions of dollars on the Department of Education since its founding in 1979, yet test scores and other measures indicate no improvement in American education” (p. 298). Taxpayers’ money goes to the USDE to be distributed according to their agendas. Education spending from tax dollars continues to remain a priority for taxpayers yet no evidence shows the money is making a difference in raising student and teacher performance.

Federal funding does not improve education in spite of new federally administered reforms. In President Obama’s State of the Union Address (2011) he referred to the “Race to the Top” (RTTT) program. “We launched a competition called ‘Race to the Top’. To all 50 states we said, ‘If you show us the most innovative plans to improve teacher quality and student achievement, we’ll show you the money’”. RTTT is not much different than NCLB. Both are based on the idea that federal incentives facilitate improvement. About $4 billion of stimulus is budgeted for implementing RTTT.

Money spent on education does not cause higher student performance. Fig. 1 depicts high cost for poor results since the inception of the USDE.

Average Student Performance and Cost, Fig. 1. Crane, Edward H. (2003) Average Student Performance and Cost, [chart], From Cato handbook for congress 108th:  Policy recommendations for the 108th congress (p. 298) Published by the Cato Institute, 2003. Fig. 1 Cato Handbook for Congress 108th: Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress Federal dollars spent and student performance from 1980 to 1999.

The National Center for Education Statistics scored nine year-old children in reading from 1980 to 2000. Their research shows no positive correlation between student performance and cost. During 1999 nearly $230 billion was spent on education while average student test scores declined to just above 210 out of a range of 200 to 250. No significant change in student performance has ever occurred in the history of the USDE.

After 2000, the pattern continues. The National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) finds “At age 17, the average reading score in 2008 was higher than in 2004 but not significantly different from that in 1971” (Nation’s Report Card, 2008). Seniors of graduating age have scores similar to those in 1971.

trend in naep reading average scores for 17-year-old students, Fig. 2 Trend in NAEP reading average scores for 17-year-old students, The National Assessment for Educational Progress, The Nations Report Card, Fig. 2. Retrieved (March 24, 2012) from

Fig. 2 shows a difference of 3 points higher in 2008 than 2004 and a total of one point higher than 1971. Minimal improvement shows that the continued path the government takes for education reform is ineffective. Why the federal government continues it’s failing education agenda deserves more consideration.

Money shifts in bureaucratic offices; sometimes without accomplishing its intended use. According to John T. Wenders (2005) who writes scholarly articles for “Cato Journal”, the object of the federal education endeavor is to convince voters that their taxes are improving education when in reality the public’s money is providing payment for competing institutions (p. 221). Publicity for the positive ideas expressed through federal education programs encourages the public to feel comfortable with spending taxes on education. Tax money is not used for education the way the public has been led to believe. Instead, money is redistributed to other units within the educational system for arbitrary purposes. As money shifts in far away offices with plans for improving little Joe’s education, little Joe suffers while local authorities sift through reams of policy to find what federal program he needs. Local administrators, teachers and parents have the solutions little Joe needs. They need to be able to take action in his behalf. Local solutions to local problems will provide for students’ needs with greater accuracy and timeliness.

With correct information about expenditure of education tax dollars, People have power to persuade politicians to represent their requests to stop education spending. Associate Director of the Center for Educational Freedom, Neil McCluskey (2011), explains that government gets away with spending infinite dollars on education because the public allows it. They don’t know that their money is being wasted. Education is such a good thing that they think more money will help. He states that the spending spree will only stop if people’s attitude toward federal education spending changes. McCluskey’s conclusion states that the public must show the politicians it is in their best interest to stop (February 15, 2011). Many people are willing to sacrifice to obtain education or assist others in achieving it. Although this is a noble cause, traditional thinking that tax money sent to the USDE will improve education is a misunderstanding.

The “Overview of the Department of Education” claims it “does not establish schools and colleges; develop curricula; set requirements for enrollment and graduation; determine state education standards; or develop or implement testing to measure whether states are meeting their education standards” (p. 4). Schools and colleges are developed and established by counties, states, and private institutions. Requirements for enrollment and graduation are produced by local administrative authorities. Curriculum in rural schools is relatively free from federal oversight. The Ola School in the Emmett, Idaho School District is an example of freedom from federal curriculum restraints. Students are continually engaged in hands on activities that encourage integrated learning. Teaching for testing is limited.

Standards have been created to determine the need for improvement. The “Overview” (2010) mentions that State education standards are determined by the states. The NEAP determines National testing. If states fall under the National standards the USDE encourages them to revise their plans for improvement (p. 10). States are encouraged to use the NEAP results to compare with their own testing. Even though the USDE does not determine state educational standards directly, standards are determined through comparative analysis.

The USDE does allow certain freedoms to the states and localities in supporting public schools by declaring their exclusion of certain powers from their direct control. However, these exclusions are narrowing in scope as more programs limit curricula and determine standards. In the Cato Institute podcast, “A Video Response to the 2011 State of the Union”, McCluskey explains that through RTTT curriculum is becoming federally controlled (January 26, 2011). States must meet federal qualifications to receive federal assistance. As this happens, local input over education diminishes in order to achieve national compliance.

National teacher incentives for improvement are erroneous. According to Lisa Patel Stevens and Peter Piazza (2010), authors for Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, most policies are based on the belief that “teachers bear the greatest single responsibility and capacity for raising all students’ achievement” and that “teachers know what to do to be effective but lack the correct incentives to achieve high performance.” Policies must take into consideration the “social and environmental factors that have a profound effect on student achievement” (p. 513). Teacher incentive policies are made to improve teacher performance. Students have life circumstances that affect their reaction to the teaching they receive. When “social and environmental” needs are not considered in policies for teacher incentives, those incentives generate little teacher improvement.

The line between federally dictated education and local authority to educate has been drawn. The USDE has been found overstepping that line. Meeting the educational needs of students includes considering the whole child and all factors that contribute to learning. National stipulations cannot replace the effectiveness of localities to support families and concerned citizens in providing for those needs. Small local units such as families, communities, and local private organizations, have the responsibility and vested interest in educating their children.

The public on local levels, with united purpose can reclaim the educational authority it once had before the formation of the USDE. Understanding correct information and then reasoning with representatives while voting against education spending and eliminating federal education programs will eventually result in educational power returning to the rightful authority. As responsible citizens unite to reclaim education from the federal government, the educational needs of students will be fulfilled more accurately than any distant government official or team of officials could prescribe. Familial aims for public education will be satisfied through the support of States, communities and local private institutions with personal interest in education.


Bushaw, W. J., & McNee, J. A. (2009). The 41st annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the public's attitudes toward the public schools. The Phi Delta Kappan, 91(1), 8-23.

Cato Institute. (2011, January 26). A video response to the 2011 State of the Union. Podcast retrieved from

Chilcott, L. (producer), & Guggenheim, D. (Director). (January 22, 2010). Waiting for superman [Motion picture]. USA: Participant Media.

Crane, E. H. (Ed.). (2003). Cato handbook for congress 108th: Policy recommendations for the 108th congress. Washington, DC: The Cato Institute.

Department of Education Organization Act, Pub. L. No. 96-88, § 101, 93 Stat. 668 (1981).

Fig. 1. Crane, Edward H. (2003) Average Student Performance and Cost, [chart], From Cato handbook for congress 108th: Policy recommendations for the 108th congress (p. 298) Published by the Cato Institute, 2003.

Fig. 2. Retrieved (March 24, 2012) from

Guisbond, L., & Neill, M. (2004). Failing our children: No child left behind undermines quality and equity in education. The Clearing House, 78(1), 12-16.

Mathews, D. (2002). Why public schools? Whose public schools? What early communities have to tell us. Alabama: New South Inc.

McCluskey, N. (2011, February 15). Education waste: We have only ourselves to blame. Orange County Register, Retrieved from

Riley, S. (2007). Moral identity and moral education: A Roycean proposal for school choice, The Pluralist, 2(2), 91-105.

Stephens, D. (1984). President Carter, the Congress, and NEA: Creating the Department of Education, Political Science Quarterly, 98(4), pp. 641-663.

Stevens, L. P. & Piazza, P. (2010). Dear President Obama and secretary Duncan: You are looking through the wrong window. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(6), 512-515.

U.S. Const., amend. X, § 1.

USDE. (2010). Office of Communications and Outreach. Overview of the Department of Education. Washington DC: Education Publications Center.

Wenders, J. T. (2005). The Extent and Nature of Waste and Rent Dissipation in U.S. Public Education, 25(2). Retrieved from

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Black Teen Jada Williams Shunned by Barack Obama and Persecuted by Education System

According to the eye-opening and superbly written article by Matthew May titled Black Teen Run Off the Liberal Plantation, posted May 2, 2012 in American Thinker, thirteen year old Jada Williams was given a school assignment to read a book titled The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave. Jada's assignment was to not only read this book, but to write an essay about her impressions regarding the book.

Jada's essay was supposed to be entered into a competition. That never happened. Her essay is honest and insightful, to say the least. It merits every opportunity enter and to win any writing competition out there. But, it is not what her so called educators want to hear. It is not in line with the approved indoctrination of young minds overseen by the federally funded bureaucracy known as the National Education Association (NEA).

Not only did Jada's school teacher a promise to enter Jada's essay into the competition, but the teacher distributed copies of the essay to the faculty members and the school principal. Soon, Jada's parents began receiving phone calls stating that Jada was an angry student.

Jada had no prior history of anger issues at school. She had consistently earned good grades, being described as a model student up until the reading of her essay. Apparently, her essay offended and exposed her liberal educators so much that they unfairly began issuing low grades on all her subsequent work. The school refused to show Jada's parents any of her work that supposedly received poor grades.

If Jada did become angry, wouldn't that be understandable? Who can blame her for feeling some rage, if indeed she did, though it appears she remained dignified in spite of what she faced. She just read a book that opened her young mind to a horrific reality that, while perhaps not being physically perpetuated today, is to some extent being intellectually and perhaps psychologically perpetuated by a corrupt, liberal, leftist education system. I wonder if Jada's teacher made her read that book hoping it would provoke exactly the response it did.

Admittedly, Jada is an exceptional student who has a sincere desire to learn. Many of her peers, regardless of race or background, have no desire whatsoever to learn anything. Teachers have a responsibility to teach. Students have a responsibility to learn. In Jada's case, it seems she is doing her part, but her teacher and school faculty are not holding up their end of the deal.

Domestic despot and White House insurgent, Barack Hussein Obama, and First Witch spelled with a "B" were both quick to react to news of the Martin Trayvon shooting. Obama promptly placed a personal phone call to Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke after Rush Limbaugh called out for exchanging sex for contraception, calling her a slut and a prostitute following her speech in favor of mandating insurance companies to cover contraception. Obama took time to express concern and direct action regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting. He took time to personally offer his support to Sandra Fluke. But, he won't touch the Jada Williams essay issue with a ten foot pole. Why? Don't even think about telling me he hasn't heard about it. You know he has.

More details available on RomanticPoet's Weblog, a wordpress blog. You can watch Jada Williams read her essay on the YouTube video below.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Profiling an Anti-Christ

I cannot take credit for the production of the following YouTube video. I did not produce it. I am grateful to those who put the time and effort into making it.

I personally use the King James Bible. I believe this video references the New International Version (NIV).

The video below suggests that even before the 2008 presidential elections, Barack Hussein Obama fit 12 of the 19 criteria by which an anti-Christ may be identified. According to this video, Bible scholars generally agree on 19 criteria outlined in scriptural records as being descriptive of an anti-Christ.

The video I originally posted has no sound, but the text shown in the video is clear. I have transcribed the text to make it easier to read and search.

Now, thanks to a great comment from a reader, a version of the same video is available with sound. I have added it to this post.

"Who is the Antichrist? How does the Bible describe him?

The following are the prominent places in scripture that contain startling and detailed information about the "antichrist" - of the very last days of man's rule on earth:

Daniel 7,8,9
Matthew 24
II Thessalonians 2
Revelation 13,17,18

There are 19 prominent characteristics of the antichrist almost universally agreed upon by Bible Scholars that are found in these passages.

Barack Hussein Obama meets 12 of the 19 BEFORE he even takes office. (As of 11/12/08)

The remaining 7 characteristics would necessarily require him to be in or nearly in office for them to be fulfilled.

What follows is NOT a "declaration" that Barack Hussein Obama IS the "antichrist."

Others, who have preceded Barack Hussein Obama have had similar characteristics and similar claims made about them.

To my knowledge, none, though, have possessed so many in such striking detail.

The First Twelve

1. Daniel 8:9-12
Starts small but becomes great/succeeds in whatever he does

In less than 12 years - he went from Community Organizer to the U.S. Senate to the President of the United States of America. Now, he will be the most powerful man on earth at one of the most critical times in world history.

2. Daniel 7:11
He is arrogant and boastful as a major personality trait.

Numerous news programs, radio broadcasts and periodical articles have been devoted to this topic.

3. Daniel 8:24
He will cause "astounding devastation"

He has already PROMISED one policy which has been predicted to do exactly those very words...

The following is Barack Hussein Obama's promise and General David Petraeus' response.
[No sound or text]

4. Daniel 8:24
He will become very strong...but not by his own his quick rise to fame.

Oprah Winfrey (The richest and most powerful woman in the world) has never endorsed a candidate in her 25 year career, that is until Barack Obama decided to run for President.

Obama is supported by almost the entirety of Hollywood - undeniably the most powerful "influence" on the world.

In addition, to the surprise of many, he was supported by Ted Kennedy (the most powerful Senator), a long time supporter and friend of the Clintons.

5. Daniel, Thessalonians and Revelation
He will be blasphemous and speak against God and His Word

Before taking office, he has already begun his public mocking of the Word of God.
[No sound or text]

6. Revelation 17 and 18
Many believe this passage states that the antichrist will come from the dominant political, military and economic power of the world in the last days. Right now, that is the United States of America.
[No sound or text]

7. Daniel 8:23
He will be a "stern-faced" king...
This characteristic of Obama has also been much discussed within the media ranks. His expression is most often that of a somber, stern-faced person.
[No sound or text]

8. Daniel, Thessalonians, Revelation
He will be a master of intrigue and deception

It cannot be denied that Obama is the most "intriguing" President in many generations. The entire world is infatuated with him. Headlines around the world declare their "praise" and "hope" in this rising star.
[News articles show headlines that read: Is Obama the Messiah?]

His deception and double talk techniques have now become famous and the fodder for many radio and television news-talk programs.
[Tom Brokaw on the Charlie Rose Show AFTER the election. No sound or text]
[A Mike's America Headline reads: Newsweek Editors: Obama a "Creepy," "Deeply Manipulative," "Creature"]

9. Daniel 7:24
He will be a King "different" from those who preceded him...

Obama has declared himself to be "different" from all the rest of the Presidents before him.
[No sound or text]

10. II Thessalonians 2
He will be known as the "lawless one" or a "rebel"

On November 11, 2008, the U.S. Secret Service announced that his Codename was RENEGADE
This was reported in major news sources around the world.

The dictionary definition of "renegade"
"a lawless one, a rebel"
(American Heritage and Merriam Webster)

11. Matthew 24
He will be seen "standing in the Holy Place" just before he takes office.
[Image of Obama facing a prayer wall with right hand on wall. No Sound or text]

This passage also declares that he is called "the abomination that will cause devastation or desolation"
[Images show title "Obamanation"]

12. Many scriptures regarding the Antichrist declare that:
He will be called the Messiah
[Louis Farrakhan speaking about Obama. No sound or text]

His Messiah complex was so apparent that the McCain campaign released a highly popular advertisement lampooning this obvious characteristic.
The One

What are the other SEVEN characteristics yet to be fulfilled?

Revelation 13 declares
1. He will have a "wounded head"
2. He will be miraculously healed - the whole world will be "astonished"
3. A false prophet will arise to be his "right hand man" - causes all to take a mark and erects a "living image" of him

Revelation 17 declares
4. A 10 nation coalition will give him great power and authority

Daniel 9:27
5. He will implement a Seven year covenant with "many." Many believe the context here is a peace treaty with Israel and Palestine.

Daniel, Matthew, Thessalonians and Revelation declare
6. He will attack Christians and Jews and persecute them viciously.

Daniel 7:25
7. He will change laws and times concerning "worship"

Is Barack Hussein Obama The Antichrist?

It is too early to tell.

But it certainly bears watching.

1 Thessalonians 5:4
But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. (NIV)"

Is Obama the Antichrist? - 12 of 19 characteristics - video with sound

Is Obama the Antichrist? Obama has 12 of the 19 signs found in the Bible - video without sound

Is Obama - an illegal president? The truth about his citizenship - You must see this video

Obama tells America - Serve Satan - this will floor you video