Category Archives: Evil

Oklahoma City in America’s spiritual war: 10 Commandments monument smashed into pieces

eye-of-the-storm

There is a ferocious spiritual war in America, and Oklahoma City seems to be at the center, targeted by malevolent people and forces.

In 2009 when Republicans were in control, the state legislature gave the green light for a Ten Commandments statue, paid for with private funds, to be placed outside the state capitol building in Oklahoma City.

Three years later, in November 2012, a 6-feet tall granite monument of the Ten Commandments was erected.

10 commandments monument outside Oklahoma state Capitol

Almost immediately, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) leveled a lawsuit to remove the monument, claiming that it violated the state constitution’s ban against using public property to support church or religion.

The ACLU’s lawsuit was followed by the New York-based Satanic Temple declaring their intention to build a 7 ft. tall statue of their master next to the Ten Commandments — all in the name of “religious parity.”

Then, on September 21, 2014, a local satanist group conducted a blasphemous “Black Mass” right smack in the Oklahoma City Civic Center.

Alton Nolen

Alton Nolen

Three days after the satanic Black Mass, on September 24, 2014, a recent convert to Islam, 30-year-old Alton Nolen, walked into a Vaughan Foods administrative office in Moore, a suburb of Oklahoma City, and attacked two female employees with a knife. Nolen beheaded Colleen Hufford, 54, and repeatedly stabbed Traci Johnson, 43, who survived the attack. (See “Of course he did: Obama Official Praises Mosque Of Oklahoma Beheader Alton Nolen”)

Mark Vaughan, the company’s chief operating officer, who is also a reserve sheriff’s deputy, shot Nolen, stopping the attack. Nolen was charged with first-degree murder and assault and battery with a deadly weapon, and may also face federal charges as well.

Writing for CNN, Mel Robbins is incredulous that the FBI refuses to call Nolen’s attack and beheading a terrorist attack:

It was a terrorist attack, and everyone knows it. Why won’t the government say so? The Washington Post reports that the FBI found ‘no indication that Alton Alexander Nolen was copying the beheadings of journalists in Syria by the Islamic State … adding that they are treating this as an incident of workplace violence.’

Workplace violence? You can’t be serious! Oh wait — the FBI must mean “workplace violence” as in the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the terrorist convicted in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting that killed 13 people and left many more wounded.

On September 19, 2014, the ACLU’s lawsuit to remove the Ten Commandments monument was thrown out by an Oklahoma County judge.

So satanists took matters into their own talons.

Zak Patterson reports for Oklahoma City’s KOCO that at approximately 9 p.m. on Oct. 23, 2014, a man drove his car into the Ten Commandments monument and smashed it into pieces.

The suspect told the Secret Service, upon his arrest, that Satan had told him to do it. He admitted that he had urinated on the monument before running it over.

The suspect reportedly also made vague threats at the Oklahoma City Federal Building and said he would kill President Obama and spit on a photo of Obama. The man was taken into custody. The vehicle involved was abandoned and has since been impounded.

The cleanup is underway and parts of the Ten Commandments monument will be restored.

The ACLU of Oklahoma made this statement following the incident:

“The ACLU of Oklahoma and our clients are outraged at this apparent act of vandalism. While we have and continue to seek the removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the Capitol grounds through the judicial process, the Ten Commandments constitute a strong foundation in our clients’ deeply held religious beliefs. To see the Ten Commandments desecrated by vandals is highly offensive to them as people of faith. Our Oklahoma and Federal Constitutions seek to create a society in which people of all faiths and those of no faith at all can coexist as equals without fear of repressions from the government or their neighbors. Whether it is politicians using religion as a political tool or vandals desecrating religious symbols, neither are living up to the full promise of our founding documents.”

An official with the US Attorney’s Office said if enough evidence is found against the suspect regarding his alleged threats against the president then a report will be submitted to the US Attorney’s Office.

Anyone with information about the incident is asked to call OHP at 405-425-7709.

Michael Reed Jr.

Michael Reed Jr.

The police have since identified the man as Michael Tate Reed Jr., 29. He is from Roland and was taken to Oklahoma County mental facility for an emergency order of detention and a mental evaluation.

Reed’s mother, Crystal Tucker, said her son “would never deface something that meant so much to him. He takes the Ten Commandments very seriously.” Tucker said Reed has been battling breakdowns for two years ever since he was injured at work four years ago. (See “Psychiatric nurse says half of patients have a spiritual affliction”)

Tucker said when her son “has these breakdowns, the one thing that is foremost in his mind, his religion, is the thing he takes it out on.” But Reed does not worship Satan, the mother said. “Anyone who knows Michael, knows he loves his God. Right now, everyone is praying for him.”

Well, mom. I suggest you ask your son who “his God” is.

See also:

~Eowyn

City Officials Order Black Couple to Perform KKK Wedding

Now All I can say is this is a beautiful thing. In the “Immortal” words of That trailblazer of Racial Harmony , Rodney King…

Can’t We All Get Along?

—————————————————————————————————-

Posted on October 20, 2014 by
http://godfatherpolitics.com/

A black couple that owns a wedding chapel has been offering their facility to couples for years. People from around the country visit the charming chapel set in a beautiful wilderness area to get hitched.

But a few months ago, a couple came in wanting to do a KKK-themed wedding. At first, the couple, Roy and Esther Black, thought it was a joke, something from a David Chappelle comedy routine. They wondered where the hidden cameras were.

To their surprise and shock, however, they found out that the couple was serious. They wanted to dress in their KKK garb and have the Blacks perform the ceremony. The best man and maid of honor would also be dressed in KKK attire but, like the couple, without hoods.

Very Charming Chapel.

Very Charming Chapel.

Umm, now this is uncomfortable.

Umm, now this is uncomfortable.

How Dare you discriminate against me?

How Dare you discriminate against me?

As nicely as they could, the Blacks said they couldn’t do it. They were opposed to the beliefs of the KKK. They suggested that if they really wanted a KKK-themed wedding that they should go elsewhere.

The couple was irate and decided to file an anti-discrimination lawsuit against the Blacks.

“The chapel was open to the public,” Blake Atkinson told a reporter for KLKA TV, “and since the chapel is advertised for weddings, the Blacks should be forced to perform our wedding. Public accommodation laws demand it”

“City officials told the Blacks, both ordained ministers who run The Chapel in the Pines, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its ‘non-discrimination’ ordinance requires the Blacks to perform wedding ceremonies for anybody that asks no matter what their beliefs are regarding the people who are asking to be married.”

Civil rights groups around the country are outraged over the decision of city officials. How is it possible for a couple like the Blacks to be forced to perform a wedding for a couple whose lifestyle and belief system they abhor?

Good question. The same can be asked of people who oppose same-sex marriage.

The above story is fictional but based on a true account related to same-sex marriage. It is designed to show the absurdity of new laws being passed and enforced to mandate that the owners of places like the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel in Coeur D’Alene, Idaho, perform weddings for same-sex couples or go to jail or face stiff fines.

Coeur d’Alene officials told the Knapps privately and also publicly stated that the couple would violate the city’s public accommodations statute once same-sex marriage became legal in Idaho if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony at their chapel. On Friday, the Knapps respectfully declined such a ceremony and now face up to 180 days in jail and up to $1,000 in fines for each day they decline to perform that ceremony.

“‘The city somehow expects ordained pastors to flip a switch and turn off all faithfulness to their God and their vows,’ explained ADF Legal Counsel Jonathan Scruggs. ‘The U.S. Constitution as well as federal and state law clearly stand against that. The city cannot mandate across-the-board conformity to its interpretation of a city ordinance in utter disregard for the guaranteed freedoms Americans treasure in our society.’”

What’s next? How will the tyranny be expanded? Look what’s happening in Houston, Texas. If the government can force the Knapps to go against their beliefs, then they can force others to do the same.

Homosexuals and the civil officials of Coeur d’Alene will argue that there’s no law protecting the KKK, and that’s the point. If the government can make up laws protecting one class, it can make laws to protect any class or any belief or nay group and make us pay dearly for any opposition.

~Steve~
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/

 

U.S. bishops betrayed the unborn, fearing Catholics would leave Democrat Party

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”
-2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Mark Gallagher had worked with the Government Liaison Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Washington from 1974 to 2007. He was mainly responsible for lobbying Congress on abortion and programs for the poor.

In a stunning article for Crisis Magazine, Oct. 22, 2014, Gallagher gives a first-person account that after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade ruling opening the floodgates to the killing of unborn human beings by legalizing abortion in the name of women’s “right to privacy,” Catholic bishops — putting “social justice” before the right to life — made a collective decision not to aggressively warn and inform the laity because they feared doing so would drive American Catholics away from the Democratic Party into the GOP.

Our Lord Jesus the Christ had warned: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-16)

These bishops have nothing less than the blood of innocents on their hands. They will be called to account for their grave sins before God.

Here is Gallagher’s article in its entirety.

JesusHoldingBabyClose

The Bishops’ Fateful Decision Respecting the Unborn

Mark Gallagher – Crisis Magazine – Oct. 22, 2014

In 1973 the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. It was projected that the decision would not just replace illegal abortions with legal ones, but that the total number of abortions would dramatically increase (it turned out by approximately a million a year). It was clear that there were only two remedies: the Supreme Court reversing it; or a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress and ratified by the states to overturn it. This required the election of presidents who would nominate Supreme Court justices not interested in creating constitutional rights to legal abortion, and the election of pro-life members of Congress to confirm the justices, and to propose a constitutional amendment. Elections were the key. How were the bishops to proceed?

The bishops’ conference staff provided two conflicting recommendations. As their pro-life lobbyist, I recommended that the bishops conduct a major campaign to educate and correctly form the consciences of American Catholics to their responsibility to elect candidates who support the Common Good, which is protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God (including the unborn). And those candidates who refused to support the Common Good would be morally unacceptable for public office. The laity’s responsibility included being involved in their political party so that Common Good candidates would be recruited and nominated for office.

The Social Development and World Peace staff at the bishops’ conference disagreed with this approach. They dealt with the economy, poverty, food policy, housing, human rights, military expenditures, and U.S. foreign policy, and felt their goals and prudential judgments were more reflected by the Democrats in Congress. I was told sometime later of their concern that Roe v. Wade would cause Catholics to seek the protection of the unborn by voting for Republicans (most were pro-life [90+ percent]) instead of Democrats (about 2/3rds were pro-abortion then [94 percent now]). This shift in the Catholic vote would necessarily hurt their legislative agenda. So a campaign should be undertaken to convince Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. Their view prevailed and they pursued with the relevant bishops’ committees the first-ever Catholic voters guide published in 1976, called the “Political Responsibility Statement” (now called Faithful Citizenship). It would be the primary tool to achieve their objective. The document:

(1) Did not call upon Catholics to vote against a candidate who opposed the Common Good by supporting abortion. It cited no intrinsic evil that if supported would render a legislator morally unacceptable for office. And It did not include relevant Catholic moral theology: (a) that the constant teaching of the Church is that there are “certain choices that are always intrinsically evil” (i.e. abortion: … if one could eliminate all poverty in America at the cost of permitting the killing of one innocent person, that cost was too high and morally wrong); and (b) the applicability of proportionalism. According to one authoritative source, it holds that “the moral quality of an action is determined by whether the evils brought about by proposed action are proportionate to the goods the action effects. If the goods effected by the action are not in proportion to the evils caused, then the action is evil, but if they are, then the action is morally good.” First, there are no proportionate goods achieved by the killing of a million unborn each year. Second, voting American Catholics are not faced with any moral evils equivalent to abortion that might warrant voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Voters have never been faced with the dilemma of choosing between a pro-abortion candidate and, for example, a rival candidate that would permit the killing annually of a million citizens through starvation or freezing. Or, by way of another example, Catholic voters do not have to choose between a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate advocating an unjust war that would involve a first-strike nuclear attack on millions of innocent persons. Voting for pro-abortion candidates in America has never been, and still cannot, be justified under the principle of proportionality.

(2) Listed everything they hoped a legislator would support (at least a dozen). This marginalized protecting human life by making it just one of many important issues. The candidate who supported abortion could say (and routinely did), that they supported 90-95 percent of the bishops legislative agenda.

(3) The current voter guide explicitly permits Catholics to vote for candidates who support intrinsic moral evils. It says, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil” like abortion, “if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” But what if a voter supports a pro-abortion candidate for some other reason? “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” The moral reasons must be “truly grave,” yet as I have argued, there are no grave moral reasons that trump protecting the unborn. Also would it really be far fetched to imagine that a Catholic voter, following the guide’s exception, might support a pro-abortion candidate because, for example, his position on “climate change” echoes that of the bishops who have said that saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions was a moral obligation?

In addition to this voters’ guide, the national Social Development and World Peace staff, as well as their diocesan counterparts, informed Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. This education campaign included workshops to persuade the laity that it was better to use their vote to achieve a good (helping the poor) rather than to oppose an evil (abortion).

A final step that helped pro-abortion Catholic candidates was the bishops giving them, or permitting them to receive, Communion. Many laity concluded that these legislators’ votes for abortion were morally acceptable, and that Catholics could vote for them in good conscience. Regular reception of Communion in the Catholic Church conveys that the person is a practicing Catholic, in the state of grace, in good standing, in communion with the Church.

All of these actions decreased the number of churchgoing Catholics voting pro-life, and this prevented (and still prevents) achieving sufficient votes to legally protect the unborn.

From a political science perspective the division of the Catholic vote (those voting for pro-life candidates and those voting for pro-abortion candidates) has severely limited if not completely neutralized the effect of the Catholic vote for good. If a significant majority of Catholics were united in only supporting Common Good candidates, as the Jewish community is largely united in only supporting candidates who support the State of Israel, then Catholics would legislatively achieve protection for the unborn and many other goals. When a group can decide the outcome of elections on one issue, then it will command serious consideration of whatever it pursues. The divided Catholic vote has prevented this.

The bishops have continued on their failed course for forty years, with fateful, disastrous results. If the bishops would change course, the legal killing, now at 56 million, could be stopped. The bishops need to teach that: (a) Legislators have the compelling moral responsibility to pursue the Common Good, protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God, born and unborn. And those who do not, are morally unfit for office; (b) “Catholic” legislators who support abortion are not in communion with the Church and they will not be given Communion until they are; and (c) Catholic citizens cannot in good conscience elect legislators who support the killing of the unborn (for there are no proportionate reasons to justify it).

H/t California Catholic Daily

~Eowyn

The many accomplishments of Hillary Clinton

Dick Morris was a friend and long-time adviser to Bill Clinton, beginning when Bill was Governor of Arkansas. Morris became a political adviser to the White House after Clinton was elected president in 1992, and the campaign manager of Bill’s successful 1996 bid for re-election.

In other words, Dick Morris knows the Clintons very very well.

In an email, Morris has written an analysis of a Bill Clinton TV ad for Hillary who is, though unannounced, widely believed to be a candidate for the presidency in 2016. (God help us!)

Hillary's accomplishments

Morris writes:

I hope everyone who receives this e-mail understands why it is being sent, because we have already seen what damage a President can do by suppressing the facts and twisting the truth; we don’t need another self-centered politician to follow on in those footsteps.

If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in which he introduces the commercial by saying he wants to share some things we may not know about Hillary’s background … beware, as I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than just about anyone, I offer a few corrections:

Bill says: “In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.”

The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: “Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.”

The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: “Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.”

The facts are: 

  • She flunked the DC bar exam, yes, flunked; it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar.
  • She had no job offers in Arkansas, none, and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there.
  • She did not join the prestigious Rose Law Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.

Bill says: “President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its chairman.”

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says: “She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.”

The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-Mart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says: “Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994, but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.”

The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Clinton & Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I know; I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: “Hillary was the face of America all over the world.”

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely tourism and symbolic, and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

Bill says: “Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.”

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation.

Share this with everyone you know. Ask them to prove Dick Morris wrong. Think about it – he’s said all of this openly, thus if he were not factual or true, he’d be liable for defamation of character.

Hillary April 2014

And here’s my addendum to Dick Morris’ list of Hillary Clinton’s non-accomplishments.

This is Hillary’s sole “accomplishment” as Secretary of State under the POS:

On Sept. 11, 2012, despite their desperate pleas for help, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left four Americans — Ambassador Chris Stevens, State Department Information Officer Sean Smith, ex Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glenn Doherty — to die in Benghazi, Libya.

As Secretary of State and therefore head of the State Department, Hillary was the boss of Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Smith. But she left them to die. The woman has a heart of stone.

She then compounded her evil deed by lying about the jihadists’ siege on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — that it was a reaction to a little video that’s critical of Muhammad. Until Hillary and the Obama administration told and retold this lie, the world had never even heard of or known about this obscure video.

Then she further compounded her evil deeds by saying, when she was grilled about her lie about the video in a Congressional hearing on Benghazi, “What difference does it make now?”

To those who tout Hillary Clinton as America’s next President (God help us), I challenge you to name one, JUST ONE, accomplishment of her tenure as secretary of state. 

I dare you.

The latest from the Daily Mail:

Hillary’s granddaughter, Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, isn’t even a month old, but grandma is already exploiting the baby as a campaign tool. In the four weeks since Charlotte was born, Hillary’s already made reference to her granddaughter in several speeches, including at a rally yesterday for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Now I know whose idea it was to have Chelsea blatantly, shamelessly mimic Duchess Kate like this:

Chelsea Clinton mimics Kate Middelton

It’s Hillary’s way to implant in the minds of lo-info sheeple that the Clintons are American royalty.

svomit_100-121Hand me a barf bag!

See also:

~Eowyn

Why Muslims hate dogs

Islam wants me dead. That’s some “religion of peace”!

Have you wondered why Muslims hate dogs?

Here’s an explanation for why Muslims are forbidden to have a dog as a pet or allow one in their house. (H/t Mike Ramirez, a reader of DanielPipes.org, who has a website on Questionable Teachings of Islam.)

Answer: It’s in the Hadith — the corpus of the reports of the teachings, deeds and sayings of Muhammad. The Hadith was used in forming the basis of ‘Shariah’ Law and has had a profound and controversial influence on molding the commentaries on the Quran. Much of early Islamic history available today is based on the Hadith and is challenged for lack of basis in primary source material.

1. Sahih Muslim, Book 24, Number 5246 says:

Chapter : Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.

‘Aisha reported that Gabriel (peace be upon him) made a promise with Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him) to come at a definite hour; that hour came but he did not visit him. And there was in his hand (in the hand of Allah’s Apostle) a staff. He threw it from his hand and said: Never has Allah or His messengers (angels) ever broken their promise. Then he cast a glance (and by chance) found a puppy under his cot and said: ‘Aisha, when did this dog enter here? She said: By Allah, I don’t know He then commanded and it was turned out. Then Gabriel came and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to him: You promised me and I waited for you, but you did not come, whereupon he said: It was the dog in your house which prevented me (to come), for we (angels) do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.

2. Sahih Muslim, Book 024, Number 5248:

Then on that very morning he [Muhammad] commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields (or big gardens).

3. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 541

Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] said, “If somebody keeps a dog, he loses one Qirat (of the reward) of his good deeds everyday, except if he keeps it for the purpose of agriculture or for the protection of livestock. “

So the Hadith would have us believe that an Angel of God, Gabriel, refused to enter Muhammad’s house because a puppy — a creature of God — was there? And that’s why Muhammad commanded that all dogs be killed?

What ridiculous poppycock!

The truth is that when the “angel Gabriel” first visited Muhammad, this “angel” physically assaulted Muhammad, leading Muhammad to think the “angel” to be a demon.

Bukhari, Book 1, Volume 1, Hadith 3:

The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, “I do not know how to read.

The Prophet added, “The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, ‘I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?’ Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, ‘Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.” (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah’s Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, “Cover me! Cover me!” They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, “I fear that something may happen to me.”

Read more here.

What angel of God would physically and repeatedly assault (“pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more”) a man, rendering him cowering and fearful? Muhammad’s account contradicts every account of angelic encounters in the Bible.

That was no Angel Gabriel. It was a demon.

In fact, the earliest biography of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq, stated Muhammad thought he was demonically possessed.

See also “Was Islam’s founder Muhammad a real man or an invention?

~Eowyn

Family of 10 y.o. boy who murdered 90 y.o. woman doesn’t want him back

Tristen Kurilla

American society is breeding psychopaths.

The angelic-looking boy in the pic above is one of them.

He is Tristen Kurilla, age 10.

On Oct. 14, 2014, the AP and Daily Mail report that 10-year-old Tristen Kurilla from Pennsylvania has been charged as an adult in the beating death of a 90-year-old woman, Helen Novak.

Novak was in the care of Tristen’s grandfather, Anthony Virbitsky, on Sky Lake Road in Damascus Township, Pennsylvania.

Prosecutors in Wayne County said that on Oct. 11, county emergency responders got a call reporting the death of an elderly woman, Helen Novak.

District Attorney Janine Edwards said in a statement that Tristen’s mother, Martha Virbitsky, had brought the boy in to the state police barracks at Honesdale the same afternoon and reported that her son had told her that he had gone into the woman’s room to ask her a question and she yelled at him. So “he got mad, lost his temper and grabbed a cane and put it around Novak’s throat,” police said.

When Tristen was advised of his rights and interviewed by a trooper, the boy said he “pulled Novak down on the bed and held the cane on her throat and then punched her numerous times.” Tristen then went to his grandfather and first told him that the woman was “bleeding from her mouth” but denied he had harmed her.

Later, the boy admitted that he had punched the woman and put a cane around her neck. He described how he had pushed the cane into Novak’s throat for several seconds and then punched her five times in the throat and the stomach. “I was only trying to hurt her,” Kurilla told detectives.

Police said an autopsy performed at Wayne Memorial Hospital in Honesdale indicated blunt force trauma to the victim’s neck, and the death was ruled a homicide. Dr. Gary Ross also said the boy’s account to police “was consistent with the injuries he observed.”

Tristen was charged as an adult with criminal homicide and aggravated assault, with the prosecutor’s office noting that the crime of homicide “is specifically excluded from the juvenile act” and therefore “a juvenile who commits the crime of homicide is charged as an adult.” Kurilla is being held without bail pending an October 22 preliminary hearing.

According to court documents cited by WFMZ, the boy’s mother, Martha Virbitsky, told police she “has had a lot of trouble with Tristen and that he has had some mental difficulties.”

Here is another pic of Kurilla making the I-love-you devil’s horns sign:tristen-kurillaAccording to Ericka Sóuter of CafeMom, Oct. 16, 2014:

Tristen’s “parents don’t want him back. They reportedly would rather have the poor, troubled child behind bars awaiting trial than with them. [...]

Since being taken into custody, he has been held at jail in a private cell. Originally, the family’s attorney had petitioned to have the boy returned to his father or moved to a juvenile detention center. But that request has been rescinded. The juvenile facility is over 90 miles away, making it too hard to visit. As for the other option — they don’t want him back under their roof. His parents, apparently, are an ‘emotional wreck’ and don’t feel comfortable having him in their care. [...] So they want him to stay just where he is. They believe he is being treated well and is allowed to color and play. [...] Tristen may see things differently. Detectives found a piece of paper in his cell with ‘How to Escape’ written on it.”

See also “Elderly Americans increasingly are assaulted in public places.

~Eowyn

The demon is coming out of Obama again

Four years ago in mid-October, less than 3 weeks before the mid-term elections of 2010, it wasn’t looking good for the Democrats. Indeed, that was the election in which the Republicans wrestled a House majority away from Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Demonrats.

In campaign rallies during the weekend of Oct. 15-16, 2010, Obama was angry.

More than angry, he was frightening looking — which was noted by Drudge Report as well as Rush Limbaugh, who said, “An American president has never had facial expressions like this. At least we’ve never seen photos of an American president with facial expressions like this.”

These were some of the pics taken of Obama in those 2010 rallies. Trust what your instincts tell you.

Flash forward four years to another mid-term election campaign rally.

As in the midterm elections of 2010, once again it’s not looking good for the Demonrats.

The pic below was taken of Obama when he spoke at a rally for Gov. Pat Quinn, D-Ill., at Chicago State University on Sunday, Oct. 19, 2014, in Chicago.

Look at his eyes!!! Trust what your instincts tell you.

evil angry ObamaAP Photo/Evan Vucci (Source: WOKV)

Here’s a close-up of those eyes.

evil angry Obama eyes Oct. 2014

I see anger, desperation, madness….

And behind those eyes, there’s nobody there.

Just emptiness. A vacuum.

Earlier that day, Obama was at a campaign rally in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for the gubernatorial campaign of Maryland lieutenant governor Anthony G. Brown, in which members of the audience walked out while the president of the United States of America was still speaking. (See “Mainly black crowd walks out on Obama at Democratic campaign rally“)

As in 2010, once again Obama’s mask — the narcissistic psychopath’s charming social mask — is slipping and what emerges sure ain’t pretty.

It’s unholy and demonic.

See also:

~Eowyn