Mr. Sheeple: FYI, Different perspective!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20040616.shtml
Sheeple Analyst: What a great writer! Zionists like Jonah
Goldberg laugh at the stupidity of the goyim. I can see why you get off
reading guys like this! Highly irrational and insulting statements like
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., hissed at the attorney general
through his enormous teeth.
If you'd like to play that game we can talk about how Jonah Goldman
"snorted through his stubby little pig nose" or "his ideas were as
convoluted as his wiry, kinky hair." Perhaps you get the idea: alluding to
physical oddities or deformities with no real connection to the issues.
Obviously Goldberg did that to set the reader up for a smear of Biden
without offering any useful information. He says,
OK, perhaps I'm making too much light of a serious thing -
torture. But then again so is Biden. The Geneva Convention is a
contract, like all treaties.
First, Biden's statement to the Attorney General, far from making
too much light of the Geneva Conventions, is taking them seriously, and
appropriately so. Second, far from being simple quid pro quo
contracts, the Geneva Conventions are treaties with the International
community of nations to behave in an agreed upon humane manner in the
matter of war and conflict. They are agreements that by ratification have
become US law as well as an external International Law. The Geneva
Conventions have become the Law of the Land as provided in the US
Constitution.
I would suppose you would know that but if I were to suppose that you knew
that, I would expect that this is the letter you would write to Jonah
Goldberg instead of sending this neoconservative hogwash to me. You SAY
that you support the Constitution and would defend it, not with your life,
of course. You have not yet demonstrated THAT kind of courage even though
you boast that you have had "military experience."
In short, this is how the New World Order creeps in: with the creeps
joking that the Geneva Conventions are a bit quaint, rather like "Hogan's
Heroes" and funny old Sergeant Schultz (haha) and that it is time for us
to make some CHANGES. Like we should stop dreaming our silly Pollyanna
ideals of justice, all men equal before the law, that all men have certain
unalienable rights, innocent until proven guilty, trial by jury of
peers.....rights hard won over hundreds of years.
Other creeps have joked that,
We don't seek to change a single word of the Constitution . . . we
are merely proposing a few practical exemptions. -George W. Bush.
We must "update our Bill of Rights to reflect 21st Century realities."
-George W. Bush
"But that's OK, if this were a dictatorship it'd be a heck of a lot
easier......just so long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush on CNN.com,
December 18, 2000.
You buy THAT and the jokes on you.....and your children, your
grandchildren, etc.
Where did this line of discussion originate?"
Mr. Sheeple@f......
wrote:
This line of discussion originated when you expressed opposition to
President Bush's references to his Christian beliefs and also Patrick
Buchanan's expression of his beliefs. All I did was point out that they
were merely exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of religious
belief as per the Constitution of the United States. I guess you were so
mentally involved in creating a long-winded "rebuttal", by convincing with
long-winded rhetoric if unable to counter with facts.
Sheeple Analyst: What did I say that you infer is opposition to President Bush's
remarks? Go! Look! And I certainly said nothing against Patrick Buchanan's
right to express HIS religious beliefs. Once again you've made up a story
about what I said that doesn't fit the facts, and all you had to do was go
back down this chain of communication to search for the answer. It is
simple to re-examine my exact words to repeat them back to me but you seem
too lazy to even do that! Go back and look! You don't have to go very far.
You don't have to expend much effort. Just go look. I merely pointed out
that Bush's professed public beliefs were negated by his private actions.
Guess you went into a "conniption" and in your rage assembled another
argument that had nothing to do with what I had actually said. You covered
your shock and disgust with a false flag argument to take our discussion
away from the horrible revelation.
"Similarly, using public funds to erect a religious object on public
property is making a law establishing a religion. There would be no
problem using private funds for such a project in a privately owned park,
just not money collected on behalf of ALL the people."
Mr. Sheeple@f......
wrote: To make such a claim as quoted above from your email is an asinine
stretch to prove a nebulous point. It is akin to the idiocy of claiming
that school vouchers used by parents to place their kids in a private
school run by a religious orgainization is a "violation of church and
state separation"as allegedly "establishing religion". The religion is
already established, but only represented by some monument. I guess you do
not use money because using "In God We Trust" on coins and currency is
"establishment of religion" and therefore allegedly contrary to the
Constitution.
Sheeple Analyst wrote:
How is my example a stretch? It simply shows how Christians can
provide support without using public funds. And, yes, school vouchers
are public funds supporting a private organization. Many
unconstitutional acts of the government have been allowed to pass or the
court has acted in violation of the meaning of the Constitution. This only
demonstrates that we are not now living in a constitutional republic but
in the surreptitious dictatorship that began in 1861 when the Congress was
adjourned sine die and Abraham Lincoln was forced to declare
martial law and rule by Executive Order. Any Congress convened since then
has operated under the branch of the Constitution that administers the
District of Columbia and all federal territories and possessions. The 14th
Amendment was passed to provide a new class of citizen, the Citizen of the
United States, which, by presumption of our acceptance by failure to
declare otherwise, created a class of people who are SUBJECTS instead of
Sovereigns. Most people didn't know the difference.
As a result of the incorporation of the US government and the state
and county governments as subsidiaries, the nation has been governed by
public policy rather than law and we are no longer guaranteed our rights
as Sovereigns. To keep the peace as they gathered more and more power, the
government permitted the judiciary to operate under the "color" of law. As
a result, the actions over the past 140 years are null and void under the
U S Constitution but functioning to usurp more power and wealth from the
people, placing them in an unrecognized, involuntary servitude to the
masters of the government.
Slowly the New World Crocodile has approached the moment of its
final lunge. We're there. Only the facade of Constitutional rights, only
the impression of a government of, by and for the people, only the color
of law and a currency that is more and more worthless everyday, an economy
that has been repeatedly been raided by government spending, by a
collection agency (IRS) for the Federal Reserve and the IMF, military
spending on adventures of conquest, fractional reserve banking, fraudulent
banking practices, usury, illicit drug running behind the facade of
National Security and a "War on Drugs" and child sex abuse, pornography,
and white slavery.
You said you knew all about the Federal Reserve, you've known ALL about
that for a long time, and yet you refer to the currency (Federal Reserve
Notes are debt instruments) as MONEY?? And I am exploring ways to exchange
energy, credits, without using the fraudulent money system fostered by the
Illuminati in the Federal Reserve Act. And your understanding of
"establishment" is not of an intellectual quality. Go look it up in a good
dictionary. Don't just look at the first few definitions. Once again, your
definitions, your apprehension of the world is superficial. You haven't
demonstrated the intellectual drive to go deeply enough to REALLY
understand something opting for the obvious and casual.
In the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College
Edition, "establish" means:
3. to cause to be accepted or recognized, 4 show to be valid or true;
prove, 5. to enact, appoint, or ordain for permanence, 7. to make (a
church) a state or national institution.
Mr. Sheeple@f......
wrote: As I have noted in the previous emails, a fact you have already forgotten,
the concept of "Church and State Separation" is established in the minds
of those who perceive the Constitution in that regard, the Constitution
states no such thing. RHB
Sheeple Analyst wrote:
But it DOES prohibit the ESTABLISHMENT of RELIGION. Look up the meaning
so you KNOW instead of ASSUMING you know. I haven't forgotten. I looked up
the meaning of the word to check my understanding. Would that you do the
same. You decry the dumbing down of America and then shout your ignorance
from the rooftops. DO your own research. Check it out. If you're going to
quote the Constitution then for your own sake, not mine, look up the
definitions.
And if I seem long-winded, it is only because you have left out
so much in your analysis and synthesis to be filled in with facts.
Mr. Sheeple@f...... wrote:
The point of Brennan's story is that the nation was founded on Christian
principles, and therefore the Constitution does not declare "separation of
church and state", but instead declares that Congress shall make no law
establishing a religion and niether shall it ban free exercise thereof!
People are free to believe and profess what they want to, and whether or
not you do not have any theological belief is immaterial. Niether Le or I
subscribe to any religious belief I call "churchianity", but that does not
mean we condemn any who exercise their first amendment rights to freely
express and exercise their religious beliefs.
The point of Brennans article was the tendency of government and other
entities to condemn Christian principles to the point of banning
individual Christian beliefs on the grounds of "church and state
separation" but accept the Jewish Menorrah, Kwansa observances and muslim
expressions of their beliefs. He did not condemn the allegations you make
about the Bush family, as you did, in your response. There is nothing to
say they cannot engage in such acts.If the allegations are true, they are
contrary to the beliefs the founders of this nation expressed as Christian
beliefs because christian principles condemn such actions. For you to
reightly object to their alleged acts, you are then espousing christian
beliefs contrary to such acts. There are people who are not "Christian",
but their personal beliefs regarding right and wrong are inherent in their
character.
Brennan also expressed concern regarding the perceptions and attitudes of
the younger generation which are contrary to the beliefs that existed in
our day when civility reigned. Civility imposed by our parents who applied
psychology to our backsides when we failed to comply with norms of a
civilized society. RHB
Sheeple Analyst wrote:
Establishing a religion can be represented by using public monies to
support, advocate, or otherwise favor one religious group over others.
This can include a public school teacher leading a class in an activity
such as group prayer. This teacher can pray separately and individually as
they wish but not in the role of a public employee doing public business.
The entire issue is fostered to create more contention between factions,
declaring that children and teachers are not permitted to pray in the
public schools. As a public school teacher I never stopped a student from
praying and was never asked to stop an individual student from praying.
"Just keep it quiet so that it doesn't interfere with the other students,
please."
Similarly, using public funds to erect a religious object on public
property is making a law establishing a religion. There would be no
problem using private funds for such a project in a privately owned park,
just not money collected on behalf of ALL the people.
I don't think you've ever heard me express any opinion that people should
not be allowed to profess their religious beliefs. If you did, it was your
own mental fabrication. It's quite good of you to not restrict anyone's
freedom. But then, that's what is expected of you, not a granting of a
privilege on your part. Didn't think this discourse had anything to do
with anybody restricting anyone else's freedom of expression. Where did
this line of discussion originate?
If Brennan was condemning the banning of individual's Christian beliefs,
he didn't refer to any particular instance of that occurring. His very
general statements glossed over the facts, allowing him to generalize
broader than the facts warranted. No one has suggested banning Christian
beliefs, just not using government resources to promote one belief to the
exclusion of others. Schwarzenegger can accept a menorah is he needs to
bolster his non-Nazi persona. A photo-op is probably not the establishment
of one religion over another. I've not seen a case of government financing
a Mosque or Masjid, have you?
The acts described are violations of the statutes and the Declaration of
Human Rights in the UN Charter to which the US is a signatory. Your belief
that such prohibitions stem from Christianity is a narrow view of the
source of morality and ethics. Before there were whiteman's laws the
Native American people lived moral and ethical lives in their communities,
admired by the Men with the Black Book and the Black Dress for their
pre-existing ethical behavior and codes of conduct. Christian ethics also
brought us Custer, Chivington, Jackson, Washington, and others who
violated human rights to enrich themselves or to gain "honor and glory."
You have not acknowledged the criminal acts of these Christian criminals
operating under the command of their "Christian" precepts on behalf of a
Christian nation. I don't need Christian precepts to act honorably and
ethically. History has shown that these self-professed "Christians" honor
their precepts more by their omission than observance, and, like Arnold
Schwarzenegger, for their effect more than for their intrinsic value.
I suggested that you base your belief system on facts gleaned from a
careful study of history rather than impressions and myths assembled from
a casual acquaintance with information and disinformation. You have
acquired a belief in a decorum that comes only from the deathly silence
that arises from a lack of knowledge. You could choose to really know
rather than found your world-view on half-truths and untruths.
On January 30, 1798, Congressman Lyon of Vermont had brazenly insulted the
Connecticut Federalist Representative Roger Griswold who retaliated for
the offense by publicly calling Lyon a coward. To this character attack
Lyon had responded by spitting directly in Griswold's face; when Congress
subsequently failed to marshal a two-thirds majority to expel Lyon for
indecorum, Griswold thought it necessary to avenge his damaged honor by
publicly caning Lyon in the House chambers. This hickory stick attack was
the climax of over two weeks of fierce congressional turmoil.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH41/Neff41.html
On March 31, 1832, Congressman William Stanbery of Ohio asked on the floor
of the House "Was not the late Secretary of War removed because of his
attempt fraudulently to give Governor Houston the contract for Indian
rations?"
On the evening of April 13 Houston beat Stanbery with a hickory cane on
Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. Stanbery drew his pistol and tried to
shoot Houston. The pistol misfired.
Senator Buckner of Missouri testified that when Houston had almost
finished caning Stanbery he lifted the Congressman's feet into the air and
"struck him elsewhere". to body parts in the Starr report.)
http://www.swt.edu/cpm/hobbyscorner/sam_houston.html
John Randolph of Roanoke lived for almost sixty years, mesmerizing and
exasperating fellow members of the United States Congress with his
eloquent oratory, and shocking many with his vitriolic verbal attacks on
his enemies, and his involvement in a caning and a duel!
".the Senate and the House have all this comity supposedly and all these
kind words - The Honorable, distinguished, sir, and so forth. The reason
they say that is because beneath that veneer of politeness lies hatred and
passion and bitterness which at times erupts into even a caning before the
Civil War of one southern congressman caning a northern abolitionist,
showing the kinds of problems that exist."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/congress/jan-june99/historians_1-7.html
Covering Congress in 1855 as a reporter, Horace Greeley suffered a mild
concussion from a caning by Speaker Albert Rust (D-AR) in reprisal for his
criticism of Rust's pro-slavery maneuvering.
http://www.honors.unr.edu/~fenimore/greeley.html
The whole decades-long national debate over slavery can be seen as one of
steadily escalating insults, each one building upon the last until what
had begun as a debate over the basic humanity of African-Americans ended
with whites on both sides questioning the humanity of each other. On May
22, 1856, the "world's greatest deliberative body" became a combat zone.
In one of the most dramatic and deeply ominous moments in the Senate's
entire history, Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina entered the
Senate chamber and savagely beat Senator Charles Sumner into bloody
unconsciousness.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/The_Caning_of_Senator_Charles_Sumner.htm
http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_cp.html
Fistfight. "A Fight in Congress" concerning a fistfight in congress
involving Keitt and Grow. 35/2/5.
www.kckcc.edu/ss/chindowan/sub35.htm
Henry S. Foote, who was kicked out of one Southern state for dueling but
managed to become governor of another, was once described as, "A bald and
pugnacious little man."
In 1847, he was elected to the U.S. Senate. However, he did not get along
with Jefferson Davis, the other senator from Mississippi at that time.
According to a story that was repeated in several biographies, Foote and
Davis came to blows on Christmas Day 1847..
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/News/register/Apr08_02/story12.html
On February 22, 1902, John McLaurin, South Carolina's junior senator,
raced into the Senate chamber and pronounced that state's senior senator,
Ben Tillman, guilty of "a willful, malicious, and deliberate lie."
Standing nearby, Tillman spun around and punched McLaurin squarely in the
jaw. The chamber exploded in pandemonium as members struggled to separate
the South Carolina delegation. In a long moment, it was over, but not
without stinging bruises both to bystanders and to the Senate's sense of
decorum.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Fistfight.htm
Otherwise the decorum is disturbed by various duels, such as that between
Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr, and by assassinations such as the
attempted assassination of Andrew Jackson, the assassinations of Lincoln,
Garfield, McKinley, Huey Long, McFadden, Larry McDonald, Kennedy, Carnahan
and Wellstone. On the surface decorum and beyond the façade of decorum,
murder. Well, that's enough for now. You should get the picture from that
cursory scan of history.
You won't acknowledge the genocidal atrocities of the Christian folk
against the Native Americans?
And corporal punishment is a very useful mind-control technique being
perfected by the scientists at NASA, CIA, DIA and various universities and
institutions run by various "christians." Spare the rod and spoil the
child is leading to Project Monarch....which you know all about, I guess.
Mr. Sheeple wrote:
We Are One
Phil Brennan
Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003
If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this
country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth
be not diffused, error will be; If God and His Word are not known and
received, the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy; If the
evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt and
licentious literature will; If the power of the Gospel is not felt
throughout the length and breadth of the land, anarchy and misrule,
degradation and misery, corruption and darkness will reign without
mitigation or end. - Daniel Webster*
My oldest son, Phil III, a decorated (Medal of Valor)
firefighter/paramedic (parental bragging rights asserted) got his Irish
dander up when he read a letter to the editor of the Daytona Beach News
Journal recently in which the writer railed against the idea of "little
fascist puppets" being made to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and its
hateful reference to - of all things - God!
Such utterances, the writer revealed, were "inserted by politicians owned
by greedy capitalists who were terrified that any amount of communism in
the United States would make them share their immense wealth with the
poor."
That Marxist absurdity provoked Phil to write a letter to the newspaper
reminding the gentleman that "Christianity was the religion of our
founding fathers." He also recited the sad litany of some of the horrors
that have resulted from our abandoning the faith of our fathers.
"We have seen prayer in our public schools taken from us, with the very
mention of God by our teachers grounds for dismissal. Now our children
prey on each other and us," he wrote.
"Millions of our precious children have been slaughtered in their mother's
womb ... we look back on the institution of slavery whereby one man owned
another as the abomination it was. Can you imagine how we will be judged
when future generations look back on a practice so barbaric as a mother
killing her own child?"
The week after his letter appeared, the paper carried four responses to
his letter, one praising him and three attacking him. Those three letters
revealed an astounding - and shameful - ignorance of American history.
The first letter made the amazing - and preposterous - claim that "If we
were to be governed by faith in a supernatural being, the founding fathers
could have said so."
Sir, they did. Numerous times.
For example, Patrick Henry,* who surely qualifies as a founding father,
said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great
nation was founded not by religionists [pluralism], but by Christians; not
on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
Letter writer No. 2 shared the tragically common illusion that there is a
"constitutional separation of Church and State" although that document
makes not a single mention of any such separation but merely prohibits the
federal government from setting up an established church. It also
prohibits the government from doing anything that prevents the free
exercise of religion, such as telling teachers they can't mention God in
the classroom.
The third letter tells us that "The writer [Phil] seems to ignore the fact
that our founding fathers were not Christians, were not religious, and
apparently were very careful to keep from making any mention of God in our
Constitution. The closest any of them came to being religious was theism."
Oh?
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in
one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the
principles of Christianity."
- John Quincy Adams*
"To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory
to add the more distinguished Character of Christian."
- George Washington*
It should be clear that the founders saw the new nation they created as a
Christian nation. By this they meant that it was founded on the principles
laid down by Jesus Christ and set forth in Holy Scripture. They espoused
no specific branch of Christianity, but made it clear that Christianity
was the bedrock beneath the Constitution and the nation it governs.
To them it was plain that while people of other religions were fully
Americans and as such welcome and cherished, they would be expected to
govern their lives by adherence to laws based upon and inspired by the Ten
Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount and the Holy Bible because they are
the sole voluntary restraints on human passions and frailties that allow
members of a society to live in peace and tranquility with one another.
John Adams* put it this way: "Statesmen, my dear sir, may plan and
speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone, which can
establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only
foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
Wrote Thomas Jefferson:* "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure,
when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of
the people that they are a gift of God? Indeed, I tremble for my
countrymen, when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep
forever."
What I'm getting at here is that even though America is a pluralistic
society that enshrines religious tolerance, the fact is that the United
States is a Christian nation and all Christians, regardless of
denomination, are one in their Christianity.
The majority of Christians abhor the killing of the innocent unborn, yet
we have allowed the courts to put the stamp of approval on this barbaric
practice. We have stood by and allowed the courts to ban all mentions of
Christianity from the public square, to forbid the recitation by children
in public schools of the Pledge of Allegiance.
We have stood by and merely wrung our hands when state courts and state
governments have attacked the very foundations of marriage by approving
same-sex unions, ignoring the demonstrable fact that the traditional
family is the core of society and that which weakens it weakens society.
We'd better start acting as if we are one in our Christian faith, which is
being trampled underfoot by the corrupt anti-creed of secular humanism
that is slowly but steadily taking captive the organs of the state and the
judiciary.
We are engaged in a struggle between good and evil - God and Satan - and
we must decline to adhere to the destructive norms laid down and enforced
by secular liberalism through its ideological dominance of the
bureaucracies, the courts, the universities and the media.
We are long past the time when we should have reared up and shouted, like
the characters in the movie "Network," that "We've had enough and we're
not going to take it anymore."
We have allowed the federal and local judiciaries to usurp legislative
power, frequently issuing decrees that countermand the public will
expressed in referenda or legislation.
As mentioned above, the courts have deliberately misinterpreted the First
Amendment, decreeing that the Constitution bans all forms of religious
expression in the public square and by enforcing its dicta thereby
violating the constitutional prohibition against interfering with the free
exercise of religion.
We have allowed ourselves to be cast free of the moorings of our Christian
faith, without which we are defenseless against the barbarism of secular
humanism. As John Adams said: "We have no government armed with power
capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and
religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the
strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our
Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly
inadequate to the government of any other."
I get e-mail all the time asking what can be done to halt this relentless
assault on our faith, our morals, our rights and our liberty. Millions of
our fellow Christians are despairing over their feeling of helplessness in
the face of what they see as a steady diminution of their most fundamental
rights and the degradation of the nation's morals.
Yet many of these same Christians continue to vote for the men and women
who are in the forefront of the war against Christianity and Christian
morals. In New York, for example, Christians cast their votes for the
blatantly anti-Christian Sen. Charles Schumer, a dedicated supporter of
the multibillion-dollar abortion industry who has fought bitterly against
nominees to the federal bench on the grounds of their devotion to their
Christian principles, which he sees as being bigoted and un-American.
Pro-life Catholics continue to vote for other champions of the abortion
industry, such as the alleged Catholics Ted Kennedy and Tom Daschle, and
then complain when they do the bidding of the industry's titans.
In his book on the war against Christianity, David Limbaugh, an
experienced lawyer, explains that Congress can put limits on the federal
judiciary and curb its usurpation of legislative power.
But not this Congress.
Christians disturbed over the fact that we are losing the moral war must
understand that the best weapon they have is their vote for members of the
House and Senate. That's where the power lies and where the war to restore
Christian morality and America's allegiance to God must be fought and won.
If we are sincere in our Christian beliefs, we will mount the barricades
next November and get rid of the secular humanists and openly
anti-Christian members of Congress such as Charles Schumer. Remember, any
Christian who votes for the likes of this man automatically joins him in
his war against Christians by keeping him where he can do the most damage.
We are one. Let's start acting like it.
Editor's Note: Get David Limbaugh's new book, "Persecution: How Liberals
are Waging Political War Against Christianity," FREE - Click Here
*Major sources:
"The Myth of Separation," by David Barton
WallBuilder Press
Post Office Box 397
Aledo, Texas 76008
(817) 441-6044
"The Light and the Glory," by Peter Marshall and David Manuel
Fleming H. Revell Company
Tarrytown, New York
Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is
editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was
Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also
served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and
helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska
Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee
of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of
Former Intelligence Officers.
Sheeple Analyst:
Are you an advocate for the Christian Church? You do surprise me
sometimes. I certainly agree with many of the ideas expressed by Brennan.
Of course, they are intended to carry on the contentiousness and
factionalism that distracts from the facts.
The facts are that many of our leader professing publicly to be
God-fearing Christians, born again, committed to Jesus their Lord, etc.
are privately participating in satanic activities, supporting child sex
abuse and bestiality, abusing men and women sexually and splitting their
personalities into numerous compartments to control their minds. One of
Reagan's favorite pastimes was watching bestiality movies starring
children in the Project Monarch. George Dubya and his Daddy didn't seem to
favor women as sex objects as much as they favored children, both boys and
girls. Cheney's penis is so big that he scares little children. Robert
Byrd's penis is so small that he had vaginas altered surgically so that he
fit better. Bill Clinton favors little boys and Hillary, little girls. All
of them enjoy the control they achieve through the use of their stun guns,
often applied to the genitals. Pain, trauma and misery are essential to
the regimen for the Project Monarch "chosen ones." Killing babies as part
of their pre-Christmas solstice ceremony, blood rituals, torture, agony
all to mock the baby Jesus of the Christians.
So I'm just not so impressed with the Christian gig. Most people do fall
for the line because, well, the rich and powerful control the media and
more importantly they control the schools and most people are so dumbed
down that they only experience life at its most superficial level, never
peeking behind the curtain to see the reality. Reality scares them and
they turn quickly to the illusions that are so comfortable and seemingly
safe..
Satan is at war with God and will not win. But there are a lot of folks
who can be snookered into believing the lie of the commons and full of
righteousness join the claque in support of that which is Satanic. How
would you describe a folk who gathered native people into stockades and
set it ablaze? Would you call them Christian? How would you describe the
actions of George Washington in stealing rich lands from native peoples
and bringing the Virginia militia to hunt them down like varmints? How
would you describe people who attack peaceful villages of people on land
designated theirs by treaty and kill women carrying babies, trampling the
babies or dashing their brains out on the tree trunks, killing the
children and old men? How would you describe bringing entire villages into
a camp and then turning the cannons on them at dawn? Christians? Perhaps
with a sick sense of humor or no sense of history such nonsense can be
swallowed righteously.
So you like to choose up sides and play Republican vs Democrat?
Conservatives vs. Liberals? Cowboys and Indians? Until you get the
questions right there is no place left to stand with answers. Brennan
misses the point totally.....and gets thousands to watch where he points.
They follow the finger and lose the pea under the walnut shell.
And all you can do with this is talk about my negativity and bitterness.
If the truth is negative what is the lie? If the truth is bitter poison
for you, you can cover it up with a lot of sugary lies. Will that work? It
would be simple to just call this a sermon, but that would have religious
overtones. You could just throw up your hands and run from the playground,
but the real world is not limited to the playground. If you don't play the
game by reasonable rules, the game will play you by satanic rules. There
is no easy alternative.
If you are careful to not look for the truth, the lie will feel more and
more comfortable until slowly all of the lies will erode the truth and
Americans will be living the lie boasting that theirs is the freest nation
in the world whereas there is no liberty and justice for ALL...only for
the elite. But you know all about them, don't you. .
The differences are not so much philosophical as they are
intellectual. You shoot out an alleged fact that I show to be nonsense,
proven by clear facts. Then you don't even acknowledge that you didn't
know that, that you had guessed and speculated, and that the truth is
other than you had represented. This interchange is core to the
educational reform you espouse because the educational reformer doesn't
have the intellectual honesty, fortitude, or learning skills to accomplish
what he wishes for the students. If this is the quality of the analysis,
then the educational reform activity will be fraught with the same fruit
loop reasoning and haphazard analysis.
You could have said, "Gee! I didn't realize that the US military was still
using that technology." You could have said, "Well, perhaps the British
really DID sell Saddam such equipment in the 1980's as they have said."
You could even have admitted that you don't really know so much about the
military as you proclaim. You could have checked it out on my web site
under Weapons of Mass Destruction. That was easy to send back to you
because I've already checked out the story and brought forward the
evidence. If you are as flip with the facts, the educational reform will
be just about as full of holes and do more damage than good.
And then you run away from the facts. If it is getting tiresome, perhaps
it's because you can't stand the strain of real analysis and fall back on
platitudes and speculation. Since I won't let you get away with sloppy
analysis you claim it is because of a philosophical differences.
Philosophical differences can be dismissed as etheric, obscure, arcane,
and irrelevant.
This is a crazy world. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been taught that
we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer,
told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit me
to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Get the picture?
Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does
this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead
of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really
are in A
New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles, an informational study.
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric. These things reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information.
Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise. See full legal disclaimer
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (attributed to Voltaire), but certainly embodies what the 1st amendment of the constitution refers to as the freedom of speech
Bill of Rights
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Queen
Victoria
