Do You Want Proof That Heaven And Hell Are Real? Just Listen To Those That Have Been To The Other Side And Come Back

by Michael Snyder, End Of The American Dream:

In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is extremely powerful. If you are an attorney that is trying to win a trial, having two or three eyewitnesses that can provide firsthand accounts of what actually happened can be the difference between winning and losing. In my case, I am a former attorney that is attempting to prove that heaven and hell are real, and it turns out that there are countless eyewitnesses that have been to the other side and come back to tell us about it. I documented some of these testimonies in my new book entitled “Why”, and I am going to share more testimonies with you today.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

There are so many people that have experienced heaven and so many people that have experienced hell that you literally couldn’t read all of their testimonies even if you spent the rest of your life doing so. We have a colossal mountain of evidence that proves that what happens to us after we die is exactly what the Bible says happens to us after we die. So why aren’t more people willing to consider that evidence?

Millions of people all over the world are having near death experiences, and researchers have discovered that most of these near death experiences share certain common elements…

The stories usually have a lot in common. A person suffers a catastrophic injury or a grave illness and is near death when he or she finds themselves going through a long, dark tunnel with a bright light at the end.

They come out to find themselves in a place suffused with overwhelming love, see angels, meet loved ones who have died and sometimes even meet Jesus Christ and God. They are in Heaven and after a short while they come back to life on earth healing with their profound experience having permanently changed them.

As I discuss in my book, even people that are blind are able to see what is going on around them during these near death experiences.

In fact, they are often able to accurately describe what doctors were doing to their bodies after they were declared clinically dead.

How is that possible if there is “nothing” after death?

Atheists that boldly declare that there is “nothing” after death can’t make their case, because we have all of the evidence.

A 68-year-old woman named Charlotte Holmes says that she spent 11 minutes in heaven when she died, but before going to heaven she could literally see medical personnel doing chest compressions on her body…

Holmes explained that her journey began as a classic ‘out of body experience’ before she was led by angels into Heaven.

‘I was above my body,’ as she remembered the ordeal.

‘I could see them doing chest compressions. I could see them, all the nurses around. I could smell the most beautiful flowers I’ve ever smelled. And then I heard music.’

After smelling flowers and hearing music, she found herself in heaven.

When she arrived in heaven, she was surrounded by “saints of old” and by family members that had died…

As she told the Christian news broadcaster, she was greeted by younger healthier versions of deceased family members as well as historic saints from history.

‘I saw my mom. I saw my dad. I saw my sister. I saw family members standing behind. I saw saints of old,’ Holmes recalled. ‘They didn’t look old. They didn’t look sick. None of them wore glasses.’

What a welcoming committee!

As you listen to her testimony, ask yourself if you think this sweet old great-grandmother is lying…

Of course she is telling the truth.

Anyone can see that.

A man named Landon Kemp that died three times on a single day when he was a child says that he was also welcomed to heaven by family members that had passed away…

Originally Posted at https://www.sgtreport.com

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
November 22, 2024
2 views

Utility Companies Are Not On Our Side

Authored by Linnea Leuken & H. Sterlin Burnett via RealClearPolitics,

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.

Dominion Energy is a good example, as they are one of the most aggressive movers on climate-focused policy. Dominion CEO Robert Blue speaks excitedly about government-forced transitions to a wind- and solar-dominated grid in interviews. During one interview with a renewable energy podcast, he said:

“[S]ometimes the government needs to focus on outcomes. We’re trying to address a climate crisis, and we are going to need to move quickly to do that.” In the same interview, he expressed enthusiasm about federal policy that would achieve a government-directed transition.

And why wouldn’t he? Dominion, like most utilities, is granted government tax credits and guarantees on returns for investing in large, expensive projects like offshore wind, the most expensive source of electric power. The bigger the project, the bigger the profit with guaranteed returns.

Also, onshore wind companies have received special “take limits” from the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill protected bald eagles and golden eagles, while prosecuting oil companies if birds are injured or killed on their sites.

Net zero policies are not the environmental panacea that climate change activists proclaim. Industrial-scale wind and solar use substantially more land than conventional energy resources, disrupting ecosystems and destroying wildlife habitats in the process.

And despite recent technological advances, wind and solar are still not dispatchable resources, meaning they cannot provide consistent power at all times needed. Refuting claims made by environmentalists and utilities that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electric power, costs have risen steeply as the use of wind and solar has increased. Customers of Duke Energy in Kentucky, for example, are paying 78% higher rates in the wake of coal-fired plant closings.

Politicians and utilities are pushing for even more electrification for appliances and vehicles despite the fact that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials have repeatedly warned in recent years that adding more demand for electric power while replacing reliable power sources with intermittent renewables is destabilizing the power system.

It appears that the utilities prioritize short-term profits over grid reliability or keeping costs reasonable – and the government officials who are supposed to keep them in check are only encouraging them. It doesn’t need to be this way. The U.S. grid was not always this way. Only in recent years, with the obsessive pursuit of net zero, have rolling black and brownouts become so common.

Today, utility companies are sending lobbyists to conservative policymakers in order to convince them that the utilities have our best interests in mind. Their track record tells another story. Meanwhile, Americans have less reliable electricity at higher costs.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org, X: @LinneaLueken) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/22/2024 – 06:30